Lord Dykes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. The atmosphere was very positive when Javier Solana presented his proposals on 6 June in Tehran and, indeed, some of the more provocative American comments have faded away somewhat since then. However, is the Minister confident that the success of the EU3 negotiating team and its capacity to exercise supervision and oversight in the longer term will be fully maintained, linked to UNSC 5+1, bearing in mind the very narrow dividing line between civilian and military enrichment activities?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, there is every intention to superintend this process rigorously. The aim of the Iranians at the moment is probably to delay making any kind of response until after the G8 meeting in St Petersburg. The aim of the international community as a whole—and I mean "as a whole"—is to ensure that there is a response much earlier than that, in weeks rather than in months.

Lord Anderson of Swansea: My Lords, there must surely be a suspicion that the elites in Iran, with strong popular support, have made a strategic decision that it is in their national interest to acquire a military nuclear capability and that they are prepared to pay a high price for that, including condemnation at the UN, international isolation, sanctions and benefits foregone. Can my noble friend give any evidence to refute that suspicion?

Lord Drayson: My Lords, I am concerned to learn that the noble Lord feels that there is a detachment because I can assure the House that there is not. The department has an absolute commitment, particularly by Ministers, to ensure that there is full understanding of the real challenges that our forces face on operations. In my own case, as I have responsibility for equipment, I do absolutely everything to ensure that our equipment is the best it can be.

Lord Drayson: My Lords, my noble friend is right. Understanding the operational commitments and demands on our forces is not simply a matter of visiting troops on operations; it is also important to make necessary visits to troops before and after operations and the most of ministerial visits which are a part of our departmental responsibilities. I have responsibility for equipment. When, for example, I visited the Commander-in-Chief Land to review our Armed Forces' equipment, particularly armed fighting vehicles, I talked to troops about their experiences in the field. Such visits are essential to our role.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, with how many countries have we signed the Memorandum of Understanding about their nationals being deported from this country? What will happen where no such understanding exists?

Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, on 3 May in another place the Prime Minister said:
	"One part of dealing with this is taking measures now to legislate so that everyone who is a foreign national who serves a prison sentence is automatically deported".—[Official Report, Commons 3/5/06; col. 963.]
	When do the Government expect to fulfil that undertaking?

Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I put down a Question for Written Answer on 26 April asking whether convicted foreign prisoners who had been recommended for deportation were entitled to apply for asylum. I received the reply only yesterday—nine weeks later. Does he understand the reply I received, because I do not?

Lord Avebury: My Lords, is it policy to deport foreign nationals to countries where torture is regularly practised in the absence of the Memorandum of Understanding? Do the Government intend to renege on our obligations under the convention against torture?

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree with the comment in Monday's Times that Gleneagles last year was "pure political theatre"? Has not aid spending by the UK during the past year since Gleneagles fallen by 2 per cent, not risen at all? The appearance of it rising is merely because the various amounts of debt forgiveness have been counted in aid figures. Is that correct?

Lord Inge: rose to call attention to the level of operational commitments on the Armed Forces and the issues of recruitment, retention and funding, including the procurement programme; and to move for Papers.
	My Lords, I asked to initiate this debate because Britain's Armed Forces have to face not only in Iraq and Afghanistan probably the most demanding, dangerous and complex operational challenges that they have faced for many years, but major funding problems and concerns about the shortcomings of equipment currently in service on operations and, in particular, the vulnerability of the old Northern Ireland Snatch Land Rovers, which was starkly illustrated in last week's Sunday Times. This is not a new problem which has suddenly arisen.
	In addition, the future equipment programme is in a muddle and is significantly under-funded. I know that at least one noble Lord will address that very important issue in some detail. The Defence Logistics Organisation, set up under the Strategic Defence Review, needs sorting out to make it, to use modern jargon, fit for purpose. I am told that in the Financial Times today there is a suggestion to combine the Defence Procurement Agency and the Defence Logistics Organisation into one large organisation. I hope that Ministers will think very carefully before they move along that path.
	These major structural problems are taking place when the Armed Forces are heavily committed on operations. At the same time, it would be a mistake to underestimate the negative impact of high profile courts martial, such as those of Trooper Williams and others. Frankly, there are parts of the Army that feel battered by the lawyers. All of this is happening at a time when our troops are heavily engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Army is already breaking the operational guidelines about the gaps in operational tours, which were announced with a flourish at the unveiling of the Strategic Defence Review. The earliest that these guidelines could be met would be late 2007.
	All this has led to a slowly growing demand for a federation or a union. What I hope for from this debate is that it will at least make some people more aware of the huge demands on our fantastic Armed Forces and why they need greater support. I shall focus mainly on the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, procurement, and why there appears to be a growing demand for a military federation or union. Before I talk about Iraq, it is important to remember the other operational deployments in places like Bosnia, where we have been for some 16 years, and Kosovo. Currently, they are not such demanding operations as those in Iraq and Afghanistan, although Kosovo may well become increasingly difficult.
	Noble Lords will realise that the political and security situation in Iraq has become increasingly challenging and dangerous. Our Armed Forces, both Regular and Reservist, are doing a magnificent job and I pay a warm tribute to the Reserve Forces and what their contribution has been. Something like 14,500 Reservists have served in Iraq. While I am certainly not suggesting that we should pack our bags and come home with our tail between our legs, it does not help that the war has become increasingly unpopular and no longer commands the support which it did. I am sure I do not need to remind the Minister how important support is for the Regular and Reserve servicemen and women fighting in Iraq and how vital it is also for their families. In all I say, we should never forget the pressure on our service families and what they have to cope with. I would add that getting the Army's message across has been impacted, I believe, by the decision to cut the three single service directors of public relations. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, will say something more about that because he has firsthand knowledge.
	As a start, it would be helpful if the Government as a whole—I stress, as a whole—put their full support behind the war. I personally am not clear what the coalition's strategic security objectives are in Iraq or how it plans to achieve them. I realise that you cannot look at security in isolation and have to consider the political and economic objectives as well. I also recognise that it is not an easy question to answer in the time available and that the Minister may prefer to give a more detailed written reply. But it would be a great help if he were to outline at least the key political and economic objectives of our strategy, and I say that because I have a real sense of drift and confusion about where we are going in Iraq.
	I am not sure that commentators and policymakers really understand what General Sir Rupert Smith was talking about when he described the difficulties of fighting a war among the people, and how difficult it is to conduct complex military operations in a nation you are trying to help when at one minute our soldiers are acting as peacekeepers, but then suddenly and very dramatically the situation changes and they are fully engaged in a major fire fight with an enemy dressed the same as many of the innocent bystanders—and they have an enemy trying to kill them in the most bloody way possible. At the same time, soldiers sometimes have to try to make arrests in vehicles that they know do not provide adequate protection.
	I shall move on to Afghanistan, a country which exports a very high proportion of the heroin on the streets of this country, and I accept that it is a noble objective to want to greatly reduce the Afghan heroin crop. But I wonder if we have thought through the implications of our policy. I believe that it is a huge long-term challenge and I have very serious reservations about the size and fighting capability of our deployment, and about our operational objectives in Afghanistan. I am not arguing that we should not be there; we are where we are, but we need to recognise that the situation on the ground could well deteriorate seriously and quickly. We therefore need to consider the implications of this on the need for increased force levels and additional equipment; and more widely, the implications for NATO, Pakistan, and the allies serving with us in Afghanistan—who incidentally are already on very different and much more restrictive rules of engagement. One has only to take a brief look at the history of Afghanistan to put this deployment into perspective. Here I am not just thinking about our own nation's previous disasters there. More recently, there has been the defeat of the Red Army, albeit with significant CIA and other support, but that strategic failure in Afghanistan played a significant part in the collapse of the Soviet Union.
	I happen to believe it is na-ve to think that the destruction and removal of the poppy crop can be achieved without a major fight. I hope I am wrong but, like most soldiers, I have been educated to plan on the worst case. I would like a clearer understanding of the Government's plan for the removal of the poppy crop and what the replacement economy will be. I would also like a clearer understanding about the role of other government departments and other nations, and what part they will play in the nation-building of Afghanistan. I would particularly like to know about Pakistan, which clearly has a major role to play.
	If I am right in thinking that things will get worse before they get better, from a military perspective we need to recognise that even from a cursory glance at our force levels in Helmand province, we do not have an adequate reserve in theatre ready and available. Helmand province, as has been said in many newspapers, is a very dangerous area, and very exposed. In addition, it is exposed to the turbulent tribal areas of Pakistan and to infiltrators from Iran. It does not make military sense, to me, for a reserve to be in the United Kingdom or, say, Cyprus. It needs to be readily available, in theatre, acclimatised and aware of local conditions, and not some hundreds of miles away.
	Even more worrying is the fact that there is no adequate reserve at the theatre level available for General Richards, who commands the Allied Rapid Reaction Corps, and for whom I have great respect. We are breaking the basic rules of military tactical and operational level planning. The coalition failed to think through the possible consequences of the war in Iraq, and I have a nasty feeling we may be doing the same in Afghanistan.
	The Minister should be quite clear: I will of course support our and NATO's forces in Afghanistan, but I want the Government to recognise the challenges which our Armed Forces are facing and that significant reinforcements of people and equipment may be necessary. In addition, it will be critical for other government ministries to play a major role and to work closely with the Ministry of Defence and with the forces on the ground in what is likely to be a dangerous environment.
	In thinking about Iraq and Afghanistan, I wonder where the political and military schwerpunkt is. I have to use that word, because it is a wonderful, Clausewitzian word. It means: where is the point of main effort? Is it Iraq or is it Afghanistan? I put this thought on the table because I sense there is a lack of European political will and European military capability to support both theatres of operation adequately. This was a strategic dilemma, on a much greater scale, which faced Churchill and Alanbrooke during the Second World War. I hope we are not making the mistake of trying to be strong everywhere and ending up being strong nowhere.
	Before I leave operational issues, I should like to add that I recognise why it is necessary to break the operational guidelines on the gap between operational tours for our very small Army. But like many other planning assumptions made by the previous and present Governments, they have been shown to be very optimistic. Indeed, some of the Armed Forces' problems today are a hangover from the previous Government and when I was on my watch as Chief of the Defence Staff. But there has been the time, even if there has not been the money, to rectify some of those mistakes. Frankly, I get a real sense that the Army, in particular, is too small. Given the current pressure and intensity of operational service which is likely to continue for the foreseeable future, I wonder whether the tour intervals planned between operational tours, not only for the teeth arms, but for the signals and the logistical and medical services, are realistic and whether they need to be longer. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, will say more about that.
	When the planning guidelines were issued, I do not believe that the planners really contemplated this intensity and this tempo of operational service. As I have said, I believe that the fundamental problem is that the Army is too small for the many tasks being laid upon it. I urge the Minister to consider this point very carefully. I have no doubt that any such study would cause all sorts of problems in the Budget, and certainly with the Treasury, but it needs to be properly addressed and thought through.
	As I have confessed, some of the problems go back to my time as Chief of the General Staff and Chief of the Defence Staff when the operational guidelines given for such studies as Front Line First and the defence cost studies led to hasty decisions which had significant consequences on the effectiveness of our Armed Forces. The cuts were made before the assumptions could be properly tested.
	I now turn to procurement and the forward equipment programme which is, of course, of the greatest importance to the fighting effectiveness of our Armed Forces. I know that at least one noble Lord will discuss that in some detail. I would also like to thank the Minister for what I know he is doing to grip the procurement programme. It is a hugely complex issue and I wish him well. Certainly, it is under-funded and in a muddle. I have a few random points or questions. I hope that the Minister will tell us today what is being done about improving as a matter of the utmost urgency the replacements for some of the vulnerable vehicles that our soldiers have to use in Iraq. In addition, what steps are being taken to improve the security of our helicopters and the air transport fleet?
	Moving on from urgent operational requirements, will the Minister give us a progress report on the future rapid effect system vehicle, which was given a very high profile as a vehicle, was critically important to the re-organised, more mobile Army, and was a key element of the Strategic Defence Review in 1998? I could be wrong, but I understand that no prototype has been designed, yet this vehicle is due in service in five years' time—in 2012. In the same year, the Lynx and Puma helicopters are due to come out of service. Both are critical for the Army's and the Royal Air Force's operational effectiveness. What progress is being made on the selection of their replacements?
	In addition, what are the Minister's views on the Defence Procurement Agency? Is it on top of its job? Is it properly structured? Is there a strong and powerful enough single service voice, really able to influence the programme at key stages in the design and procurement process? Surely, there can be no doubt in anyone's mind that, given the operational pressure on our Armed Forces, they need a future equipment programme that is effective, credible and delivered on time. That would send an important signal that the Government understand the operational pressure on our Armed Forces and why they need to be given the best possible equipment available. I should make it clear, as I have said before, that some of the problems started before the present Government took over. Again, I thank the Minister for what I know he is doing to grip this huge, complex and difficult area.
	My final point concerns the mood and morale of our Armed Forces. They are a very special group of people, for whom I have a great affection. I am beginning to see for different reasons early signs of the sort of mood of unhappiness that developed in the Armed Forces in the late 1970s when, due to a number of reasons but mainly because of very poor pay and what became known as the "Irishman's pay rise", morale was very low. That was when Northern Ireland was going through a particularly difficult stage. I was responsible for running a course which all the captains in the Army attended. There was very serious talk about federations and unions. We are beginning to hear similar talk now.
	Before people say that it is a good idea to have a federation or union, we need to analyse why they are saying that. My view is that if you produce a federation or union you will undermine the ethos of our Armed Forces and the chain of command and, very importantly, you will totally distort the relationship that should exist throughout that chain of command. That chain of command includes not just the military but Ministers and civil servants. The latter have a very real duty not only to serve Ministers, but to make sure that they are looking after the interests of our servicemen and servicewomen, Regular and Reservist, and their families. Before any hasty decisions are made, we really need to think through why there is a growing demand for some form of federation or union. I say, solve the problem and the need disappears, as it did in 1980.
	In conclusion, I hope that the Minister will understand that I am not trying to score cheap political points. The issues that I am trying to articulate are ones that give me great cause for concern because I believe that our Armed Forces are not being given the assets or budget that they need. I am convinced that the Army are too small and that the Armed Forces overall are significantly under-funded. I beg to move for Papers.

Lord Truscott: My Lords, I begin by declaring an interest as an associate fellow of the Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies. I congratulate the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge, on initiating this debate and on his wide-ranging and erudite contribution. Of course, as a former CDS he has enormous experience in this field and is greatly respected in your Lordships' House.
	Her Majesty's Armed Forces are facing great challenges across the world with immense professionalism, courage and dedication and deserve your Lordships' utmost support. In defending the United Kingdom and its interests and strengthening international peace and stability, the Armed Forces are truly a force for good in the world. I would argue that that is undoubtedly the case in the Balkans, Africa, Iraq and Afghanistan, where we have been engaged in rebuilding democratic states from the ashes if not of totalitarianism then at least of extremely repressive regimes. To cut and run in Iraq and Afghanistan would be a betrayal not only of the peoples concerned, millions of whom have taken part in democratic elections at great risk to themselves, but also of our Armed Forces, who have already sacrificed so much.
	I shall focus attention on developments in procurement policy. Our Armed Forces have undoubtedly undergone a significant transformation since the 1998 Strategic Defence Review and subsequent White Papers. A key factor has been a substantial equipment programme to reconfigure our forces underpinned by real and sustained increases in the defence budget from each spending review since 1997. Like the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge, in this regard, I congratulate my noble friend on the publication last year of the Defence Industrial Strategy, which he expertly crafted and which has been warmly welcomed by the defence industry.
	The DIS recognises the important role in the defence industry in delivering capability but also recognises that the industry must change to meet the evolving demands of our Armed Forces. The DIS outlined several important themes: the complex, technical, challenging high-value systems currently being planned will last for many years, sometimes decades. Industry must therefore change its focus from the design and build of new platforms and systems to the upgrade and support of existing and future equipment. Specifically, the DIS identifies the need to maintain onshore capability in key areas of production, security of supply and support services.
	The DIS has been so warmly welcomed in industry circles especially because it outlined the defence capabilities that we need to retain in the UK and how these capabilities must be sustained. It was acknowledged that the MoD and the Government needed to ensure that the UK had the ability to continue to operate our equipment in a way that maintained our technological sovereignty and to protect our national security. In that regard, I also commend my noble friend on the how he has insisted that the purchase of the JSF aircraft from the United States must be accompanied by the necessary transfer of technology.
	As the DIS has committed the Government to greater transparency over their future indicative spending plans, industry will be able to make important investment and restructuring decisions with greater confidence. Like the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge, I note the report in the Financial Times today on a possible merger between the DPA and the DLO, which in my view may herald improved co-operation and coherence in the procurement field. But obviously we shall have to wait for the announcement.
	Particularly important is the end to the old boom-and-bust industrial cycle and a recognition that through-life capability will depend on long-term partnering and alliances based on value-for-money solutions for the Armed Forces. Her Majesty's Government have moved away from the predominant view of the 1980s and early 1990s that the UK's manufacturing base did not matter and was somehow inferior to the City and the service sector. In that regard, I look forward to the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Levene of Portsoken, on that issue, given his great experience in this field.
	Unbridled competition as an end in itself, with no thought for the need to maintain a strategic defence industrial base, is, mercifully, consigned to history. There need be no conflict between achieving value for money and preserving those technological skills that are vital for this country's national security. I also welcome the Government's recognition that, when it comes to procurement, all sides need to effectively quantify risk and reduce it by placing it where it can be managed most effectively, something not always achieved in the past. The balance of risk between supplier and customer will, it appears, be more evenly spread in the future, even if it means stopping a project before Main Gate.
	There has been much discussion in the press of defence procurement cost overruns, but the National Audit Office has shown, with its report on 19 major procurement programmes, that the UK has a relatively good record in what remains a challenging area. The main cause of cost overruns is the complexity of new weapons systems. An advanced fighter such as the US's FA-22, for example, must be manufactured to exact tolerances to preserve its stealth capabilities and run by software that has millions of lines of code.
	Britain has done well out of defence research. A recent expert study by Andrew Middleton and Steven Bowns showed that of 10 leading nations, the UK is second only to the US on the military equipment quality curve. The UK's defence equipment is nearly 80 per cent as good as that of the United States, which spends 10 times as much as this country does. The study also showed that if we let up and spent less on defence research, we would rapidly slip down the ranks of defence nations. The Minister has indicated that the MoD's policy on research and technology has yet to be finessed. I hope he continues to give R&T the priority it deserves, and that he will come back to that issue when he winds up this debate.
	I further welcome the relaunch of the masters degree in defence administration, the MBA (Defence), to be taught jointly by the Royal Military College of Science and Cranfield University School of Management. It will help to ensure that when MoD staff engage in discussion with defence equipment suppliers, those who have gone on the course will have a better understanding of the financial, economic, marketing and operation management issues that affect the defence sector. It will also enable the MoD to achieve the best value for money for the taxpayer. At the end of the day it will be the task of the MoD and HMG to ensure that our Armed Forces have the kit they need to do the job, on time and at reasonable cost, while at the same time preserving our technological sovereignty and a viable defence manufacturing base, including a thriving aerospace and shipbuilding sector. It is a huge challenge, but one that this Government must meet head on.

Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, like every noble Lord I must begin my remarks by thanking the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge, for introducing this debate. I declare a modest interest as an adviser to one of the smaller defence manufacturing companies not particularly involved in the matters we are discussing today.
	Many years ago I spent some time as a junior Minister at the Ministry of Defence, sitting mostly at the feet of the noble Lord, Lord Levene, as the Minister for Defence Procurement that I then was. I also learnt a great deal from the noble and gallant Lords, Lord Craig and Lord Inge, who at the time, as I recall, was a lowly Major-General commanding the No. 2 Infantry Division in York. During the course of his remarks, the noble and gallant Lord referred to the importance of the reserves and the Territorial Army. Indeed, the Royal Auxiliary Air Force had a role in the division he commanded, whose principal role was deploying to Germany in times of war. I remember being briefed in detail on that role by the noble and gallant Lord, and I am grateful to him for that.
	I want to confine my brief remarks to some philosophical questions, rather than the detailed procurement matters to which the noble and gallant Lord referred, and to which I dare say the noble Lord, Lord Levene, will refer in a moment.
	It has been the policy of successive Governments for as far back as most of us can remember that our defence posture should be one of deterrence. I very much support that philosophy. In the very early days of our deterrent posture immediately after the Second World War, when nuclear weapons were in their infancy, I am told that we had a trip wire policy. Potential aggressors had only to put their foot across the line and we would perhaps deploy nuclear weapons in response.
	More recently a much more sophisticated approach of flexible response has been adopted, which I support very strongly. In that context we now have to consider whether we are to continue our deterrent policy, whether we are to continue our independent deterrent policy and whether we are to continue our independent nuclear deterrent policy. I believe that the answer is very strongly yes to all those propositions. That, indeed, is, I believe, the policy of Her Majesty's present Government, which, again, I strongly support; that is, the policy, not the Government.
	We are now faced with the prospect of the Trident system coming towards the end of its life. In the offices which I once held I was responsible for at least considering the detail of bringing the Trident system into service. It has served us well and will, indeed, serve us well for a few more years yet. But given the time it takes to devise and procure a replacement, we need to start thinking about that now.
	There are at least three alternatives to be considered. The first is an air-launched replacement. I do not believe that any serious commentator now believes that that would be the right solution. It was, indeed, the first of our nuclear deterrents. I understand that long before my time the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, played a very distinguished part in deploying the air-launched nuclear deterrent of those years. Aircraft would be gravely vulnerable in the modern circumstance, even deploying—as I presume they would—some stand-off weapon, and so would their bases. I suggest that it is widely believed that an air launch solution should not be further considered in any detail.
	What about a land-based solution? For many years at least part of the United States' deterrent comprised a land-based system, deployed from deep silos in various parts of the United States. It has the advantage that very large missiles can easily be operated from deep land-based silos, but they, too, can be vulnerable in times of tension and in other circumstances. I do not think that anybody now seriously proposes an intercontinental land-based solution. However, land-based solutions are not necessarily confined to intercontinental missiles. Much more recently—indeed, during my time at the Ministry of Defence—the United States deployed land-based cruise missiles in the United Kingdom in response to the new SS20 threat which emerged at about that time. Your Lordships will recall, as I do only too well, the difficulty that surrounded Greenham Common and Molesworth in the deployment of that land-based cruise missile system.
	I submit that the final option is the submarine-based system, which we have deployed with such success for 30 years or more now—first, the Polaris system and more recently the Trident system. Both the Polaris system and the Trident system have served us well. There could, indeed, be variations on a submarine-based system. The intercontinental missile system—Trident and Polaris were such systems—could be supplemented, or may even be replaced, by a cruise missile system launched from submarine torpedo tubes. That has some attraction still, but I believe that an intercontinental missile system is what we shall need.
	The reason for that is that, with present technology at least, a cruise missile system would need to be effected to be able to deploy not only in the deep waters of the great oceans but much closer to the land masses, and therein lies a risk. The risk is that in all the years that we have been deploying a submarine-based, intercontinental system, we have been able to say—and I hope we can still say—that the system has never been detected or compromised while on patrol. That is a crucially important consideration, and I hope the noble Lord when he replies can confirm that that continues to be the position. It is crucially important that the missile-carrying submarines operate secretly and covertly and are not subject to any risk of detection. If one is considering the possibility of a cruise missile system launched from submarine torpedo tubes, there is a risk that the submarines would have to deploy too close to the continental masses for comfort.
	That, I suppose, underlines the regret that I have expressed to your Lordships before that we decided a few years ago to abandon the conventional submarines that we then possessed, the Type 2400. We had just four of those, but they have recently been disposed of to, I understand, another country. It is a pity that we no longer have conventional submarines for operating in comparatively shallow waters. That means that the nuclear submarines presumably have to operate in areas such as the Gulf, and that needs special care.
	I summarise by saying that I hope and believe that we will continue to maintain our deterrent posture. I hope and believe that we will continue to maintain our independent nuclear deterrent posture and that it will be a submarine-based, intercontinental missile-based system.

Lord Levene of Portsoken: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble and gallant friend Lord Inge for initiating this debate. I declare an interest as chairman of General Dynamics UK and president—very much an honorary title—of the Defence Manufacturers Association, although it is certainly not my intention to speak on their behalf today. Perhaps a more pertinent interest is a past one: that of Chief of Defence Procurement in the Ministry of Defence for six years from 1985 to 1991.
	My noble and gallant friend Lord Inge has spoken most eloquently and with the greatest authority on operational issues. I would like to concentrate on that part of the debate referring to procurement. I do not propose today to indulge in large doses of reminiscences or nostalgia, but I believe that a certain amount of scene setting is necessary.
	When I took on the procurement function in the Ministry of Defence in 1985, the Cold War was still at its height, new technology was badly needed and we were passing through a period of badly flawed projects: the Nimrod AEW aircraft, the Spearfish torpedo, the Foxhunter radar—affectionately known as the Blue Circle radar because its non-availability necessitated its replacement in the nose of the Tornado aircraft by a lump of cement—to name but three. These projects were overrunning not only in time, with no end in sight, but also in cost.
	Noble Lords may well ask why there was a huge cost overrun when equipment was not being delivered. The answer is both simple and surprising. Under the infamous cost-plus contractual arrangements then in place, there was, astonishingly, no requirement to deliver in order to be paid. In fact, the absurdity of the arrangement was that the greater the cost incurred, the more the contractor would be paid. His costs were met plus a profit on those costs—hence the terminology.
	My terms of reference from the then Prime Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, and the then Defence Secretary, the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, were clear and concise: "Your job is to procure the best possible equipment for the UK Armed Forces on the best possible terms. If you can buy it in the UK, that's fine; if you can't, so be it". That is a very clear instruction, as noble Lords might agree.
	The cost-plus system had evolved from the preferred-supplier route. Clearly, it did not work; it had become too preferred and too cosy. Drastic surgery followed—painful but necessary. Over a short period, cost-plus contracts were virtually eliminated, unsuccessful projects were scrapped, large amounts of money on sunk costs were written off, and new contracts were awarded—yes, sometimes in the United States, which at least refrained from commenting, "I told you so".
	At the end of my six years, the National Audit Office reported that of a total of 37 projects started in the last five years, each valued in excess of £100 million, the cost to date was just under 1 per cent less than the department had estimated when the orders had first been placed; 28 of the 37 projects were expected to be completed on time; one was ahead of schedule; and, of the rest, only three had delays that were expected to exceed one year and none of those delays would result in additional costs falling on the department.
	So then what happened? I drafted what I intended to say today just a few days ago, sitting in the garden of the British ambassador's residence in Budapest. During my term of office, no senior MoD official would even have been allowed to travel to that country, but today Hungary, like so many other of the nations of eastern Europe, is not only a member, with us, of the European Union, but also a member of NATO. After just 15 years, we regard that as the norm, but 15 years ago it would have been considered a fantasy.
	There was immediate talk of the peace dividend. Defence budgets were cut, requirements slashed and new projects severely reduced. The result was a shrinking defence industry in Europe, less work to go round, contractors merging or going out of business, and a reduction in competition. That is the first time today that I have mentioned the word "competition"—a word that my critics have used to categorise the essence of my term in office, and which they have often linked with the word "confrontation". I shy away from neither. The only way to break out of the cosy relationship was with the harsh wind of competition; if, at times, that resulted in confrontation, that was inevitable. There are many such issues that are not really party political but present the same problems with the same limited solutions to a Government of any complexion. I mean by that a shrinking market and industry, an increased likelihood of needing to look outside our domestic base and an inherent threat to domestic job prospects and technology.
	At this point, I must link back to the real concerns so eloquently expressed by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge, and others, many of whom I had the privilege of working with at that time. We must not forget the mission statement that I was given: "To equip the Armed Forces with the best possible equipment on the best possible terms". This is the rub that confronts every Administration, whether they wish to state it publicly or not. Most do not. Is the prime purpose of the £10 billion defence procurement budget to equip the Armed Forces or to maintain the domestic industry and its capability?
	Well, what is the answer? Maybe it is, "It depends whom you're talking to". That may sound cynical, but I am not sure that it is all that inaccurate. Of course the budget is to be used to equip the Armed Forces but, at the same time, every Government wish to maintain jobs and technology at home, as they should. Is there an answer that meets both requirements to perfection? No, but then there never was. The emphasis that swings backwards and forwards over the years between competition to achieve value for money on the one hand, via "smart procurement"—whatever that meant—and "partnering based on trust", which I think is what we used to call "the preferred-supplier route", on the other, illustrates the dilemma perfectly. But I say in all humility that if you look at the last few NAO reports on the MoD major projects statement, you will see a less satisfactory outturn, year after year, than that which I mentioned earlier. The question that I just posed therefore appears in sharp relief.
	The Minister has looked at this through a fresh pair of eyes as a successful industrialist untainted by many years in the defence industry. His approach bears similarities to that of the late Lord Rayner, who was the very first Chief of Defence Procurement and came from the quintessential commercial-cum-partnering stable of Marks & Spencer. The Minister unveiled his defence industrial strategy to us last year. It has a great deal to commend it, but depends in part on the extent to which the industry is willing to be a totally open partner, placing its cards face up on the table.
	I have spent many years in this industry, first on one side of the table and then on the other. The industry's leaders are there to deliver successful performance to their shareholders and, of course, good products to their customers. But they are, first and foremost, commercial, entrepreneurial animals, and I say this having been one myself. It would be naive in the extreme to believe that their first thought on waking every day is, "Am I being a true, even-handed and fair partner to my customer?" rather than, "Are the analysts, my shareholders and my board going to be satisfied with this quarter's results?" We must always remember that the purpose of being in business is to run a profitable enterprise. As long as we all recognise that and do not persuade ourselves otherwise, then we stand a chance of a reasonable result. But that means tough bargaining, tough decisions, weighing the options and the judicious use of—if I dare use the word—competition.
	Perhaps, though, our best hope today lies in a dramatic change, both in the way in which industry operates and the way in which the Armed Forces work—I know that the Minister is well inclined towards that change. It means the end of the user buying the equipment up front and then using it, maintaining it, fuelling it, loading it and replacing it. It means, as has been mentioned, the blurring, if not perhaps merging, of the procurement with the through-life maintenance, and even some of the non-combat operating functions. That solution was mooted, I remember, in 1984, but was immediately turned down as being out of the question. It is the equivalent of airlines wet-leasing their assets and relying on trusted suppliers to keep them fully operational, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Of course, it can be made to work commercially, and it does so—with the airlines, often with the same suppliers as the Ministry of Defence already uses.
	There is one crucial difference, however. Today, most airlines are no longer state owned and they contract with one or other of the two major world suppliers, conveniently located on either side of the Atlantic, which—so the theory runs—keep each other honest. Maybe if Governments were permitted to act as impartially as this, we, too, could achieve the perfect solution. But until we can get rid of those awful words "juste retour", we will remain adrift from such a solution.
	There is no perfect solution to the dilemma that I have outlined. We must ensure that we are constantly alert to steering away those charged with the responsibility of procurement from the Scylla of feather-bedding and overfeeding our industry and the Charybdis of driving them out of business.

Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge, and congratulate him on opening this debate so well. I shall concentrate on a major topical procurement issue, following the interesting contributions of the noble Lords, Lord Trefgarne and Lord Dykes. Last week, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer commented about the future of the nuclear deterrent. During Prime Minister's Questions, the Prime Minister said,
	"the decision will have to be taken in this Parliament".—[Official Report, Commons, 21/6/06; col. 1315.].
	The Chancellor spoke of his support that same evening in his Mansion House speech. At yesterday's Prime Minister's Questions, the Prime Minister went further, saying that,
	"we will of course consult the House fully. The method of doing so will be announced at the time when we publish the White Paper".—[Official Report, Commons, 28/6/06; col. 253.]
	So both of them have reaffirmed their support for continuing our nuclear capability.
	Inevitably, our present system will, with the passage of time, reach a stage when its reliability can no longer be guaranteed. Although that is by no means imminent, long lead times mean that some decisions must be made quite soon if there is to be no break in capability. There are many aspects to consider before reaching such decisions. I can touch on only some of them.
	The first—it is obviously the key issue—is whether this country needs such a capability in future. Looking 30, 40 or more years ahead, it is impossible to forecast any set of circumstances in which the government of the day would find such a potent capability vital. Trident was adopted in the early 1980s when our defence policy was concentrated on NATO and Europe. We did not foresee the end of the Cold War less than a decade away or our subsequent involvement in large-scale expeditionary warfare thousands of miles from these shores. The deterrent posture of the Cold War has little relevance today because changes in deployment and operation have been necessary. I cannot contemplate using nuclear weapons against a terrorist or largely asymmetric threat. If they could not be used, their deterrent effect is non-existent. Their use, or threat of use, must be for situations where national security is mortally threatened.
	I recall discussions from as long ago as 1989 with my then opposite number in the United States, Admiral Crowe, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in which his firmly stated position was that any decision to use US nuclear weapons would be confined to dealing with a major threat to the security of the United States itself. Whatever the NATO rubric of an attack on one being deemed an attack on all, that would not, he said, guarantee the US using nuclear weapons on behalf of others in NATO, even the UK. Only if the threat was to the United States itself would their use be contemplated.
	Post Cold War, it is highly unlikely that the Crowe position on the use of US nuclear weapons will have changed. To rely on another nuclear-capable country, no matter how friendly, to come to our rescue by threatening, let alone using, nuclear force on our behalf is not realistic. If the threat we faced were seen as mortal to our security and way of life, only a national deterrent capability would be credible, and then only if underwritten by a realistic determination to be prepared to use it. It would also lack credibility to rely solely on a nuclear capability not backed by other military resources. Conventional military strength is an important part of a deterrent or counterforce posture, as are other non-military threats or actions in achieving a desired outcome. Conventional forces must therefore be maintained and, indeed, strengthened from today's levels that have been cut too far. Our conventional strength is now tied to a defence planning assumption that we would not become involved in major confrontation or conflict without strong allies. This dichotomy between major action only with allies and unilateral nuclear action if we face mortal danger nationally needs some explanation or elaboration that I hope Her Majesty's Government will provide.
	Another consideration about retaining a national nuclear capability is the degree to which it is seen and recognised to be independent. At the use or threat of use end, given the right security of communication, capability and national control is there. Reliance on others and their facilities beyond our shores for supply, maintenance, modification or repair has been cited as reasons for denying that Her Majesty's Government have true independence. But it is not credible to argue that no operational capability will be available, even when relying on offshore support, if Her Majesty's Government were ever to have to consider its use. The present combination of nationally provided warheads on US missiles does not deny Her Majesty's Government the possibility of independent use.
	Nevertheless, we must revisit the arguments that led to the adoption of the current procurement and support arrangements for Trident. Will the United States' view about this country retaining a nuclear capability with major assistance from it mesh with its revised global stance and ambitions? I believe that it will, although our recent experience over access to technology in the joint strike fighter that we are building with the Americans has not been a happy one.
	A further consideration is the invulnerability of the nuclear capability to pre-emptive attack and destruction. Until there is a breakthrough in underwater detection, the submarine and missile combination provides a high degree of protection and a high assurance that the capability would be available for use if necessary even if a surprise attack on it were ever attempted or contemplated.
	Less well protected would be land-based weapons or weapons relying on launch from aircraft platforms. There is potential scope for trading security from sabotage or attack with the relative lower cost of less and invulnerable systems. This too must be examined. While a nuclear weapon has an awesome capability, it is in truth even more a political rather than a military weapon. So the politics of possession must also be weighed in the balance.
	The position of the United Kingdom in the United Nations and on the Security Council may in future depend on this country remaining in the nuclear nations' club. I leave it to others to weigh this argument, but it should not be overlooked in the process of the decision taking. No Act of Parliament is required for the Government to proceed to a replacement system. But, as Mr Straw said last Thursday in another place:
	"Decisions on Trident's replacement have yet to be taken. When they have been taken, they will be put to Parliament in a White Paper. I cannot anticipate at this stage the most appropriate form of debate, but it will be in a form that shows proper respect for the House".—[Official Report, Commons, 22/6/06; col. 1468.]
	I am certain that your Lordships would also insist on a debate in this House.
	I believe that the Government are right in principle to maintain an independent nuclear capability as insurance for the unforeseens and for the leverage it can provide. But it should be backed by a better level of conventional capability that we can deploy today. What form our nuclear capability should take needs much further knowledge-based discussion than has so for been possible in public.
	Noble Lords will have noted from Mr Straw's statement that the Government intend to reach decisions first, ahead of informed debate; that is to announce and defend, in the classic way adopted by all past governments on this issue. Perhaps the Minister would like to confirm this for the House.

Lord Selsdon: My Lords, I have a remarkably insecure feeling being sandwiched between two noble and gallant Lords. I was told that when you feel insecure you should ask questions; don't say anything, just ask yourself questions and see if you can get the answers. I begin with the classic questions "How?", "What?", "Who?", "When?" and "Where?". I am trying to apply them to the debate today.
	When did we move from the Ministry of War to the Ministry of Defence? Do you ever go to war these days? If so, are you going to defend interests, and, if so, whose interests? You ask yourself, "Who and what are we seeking to defend from who and what?". If you add in "Where?" life becomes much easier because of course we are going to be worldwide. The English language is the most important language. Three billion speak it as their first, second or third language or are learning it. We still have the Commonwealth, which occupies about 20 to 25 per cent of the surface of the Earth, and Her Majesty the Queen is often head of state. I was told that the Navy has the capability to fight a war further afield than anyone else—maybe 8,000 miles away from our shores.
	In preparing for this debate, I tried to think of what we are seeking to defend. Historically, we seek to defend our trade and free passage on the high seas or wherever in the world. Now I wonder when we went into Kosovo what we were seeking to defend. When we went to war with Iraq—we did go to war; and I will always defend the right of a Prime Minister of a country such as ours to go to war—what were we seeking to defend? When we go into Afghanistan, or wherever else in the world, what are we seeking to defend? Then, how long are we going to stay there?
	If I ask where the Calcutta Cup came from, your Lordships will automatically assume that it came from Calcutta. It did; it came from Calcutta when the British Army used to play rugby at the Ballygunge Cricket Club against the Scots. When the Scots were not enough, the Army played against the Irish and the Welsh as well. That meant that in order to develop a cricket and rugby team you had to have an Army force there for a long period of time. About the same time the Army moved to play rugby in Afghanistan, which meant the troops were there for a long time. Your Lordships will remember too that the Kandahar club, which moved to Wengen when they first started downhill racing, came from when the British Army skied in Kandahar.
	It was said that we have been in Kosovo for 17 years. I worry that we might well find that we are in Afghanistan for 17 years. I know that country quite well from my days when I chaired the Government's Middle East trade committee. I know Iraq for the same reason. I also know that these countries to some extent would like us to stay. For the Afghanis, it is a wonderful situation. The warlords used to fight each other and burn each other's crops. That was the punishment and the competition. Now their crops are defended by other armies and the drug pattern begins and grows on.
	For part of my life I had to deal with alternative crops for what we would call "the weed of wisdom", or ganga. That was extraordinarily difficult to advance. With greenhouses you might possibly be able to get flowers, fruit or vegetables, but this pattern of trade still followed. On flowers—I must not mention the countries—we found a major market for carnations which went into Miami extraordinarily cheaply. The whole crop was bought. They found a new way to preserve these flowers with a white substance which would absorb the moisture so that they could be distributed throughout the United States, and the white substance was cocaine. So if the Armed Forces are trying to defend drug production that is the wrong thing to do. It is another matter if they are there to keep peace, but it requires a considerable effort.
	In order to have the best Armed Forces in the world, which I believe we have, they must have the best equipment in the world. Of that there is no doubt. I had a word with some of my friends in the Health and Safety Executive. I asked what they would do if asked to write a report on the health and safety of the Armed Forces in the countries of the world. It is pretty frightening because you are not safe unless you have good equipment, and if the equipment does not match up to the quality of your people then something must be done about it. The relative cost is not that high. To me that should be a great priority. The facilities should be available to our Armed Forces.
	On capital equipment, it seems to me that at the moment the more expensive a bit of kit is, the more vulnerable it is to terrorist activity. Even an aircraft carrier now has to be defended by a vast fleet of ships if it is to go about its business. I recall during the Trafalgar Day celebrations it was once suggested that maybe an American carrier would come to the Solent. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce, will remember this. I was told that, no, they had to have a very large cordon sanitaire around them, so they could not be in English waters because they would not necessarily be safe. As regards what might be able to bring down an Apache helicopter, I have even seen proposals and suggestions that a gaucho in America could bring one down with a bolero. So we have to say that our kit, unless it is expensive and part of a large team, is not safe.
	On fighting in the hills of Afghanistan or wherever, it is as well possibly to think of the First World War and how many people survived bombardments by being underground. I think that it is an extraordinarily difficult job.
	As regards the technologies and things that we can now find to determine where the enemy is, I turn to a small role I have as secretary of the Parliamentary Space Committee. I was not looking forward to spending three full days in the Senate in Brussels listening to people presenting the latest space technology, but I found that the development projections for satellites were extraordinarily interesting. They are the future for determining where an enemy is. The surveillance that comes from some of the newer kit is quite outstanding. So I asked: "How many satellites are there in space at the moment?". No one could tell me. They could tell me that there were 92,000 bits of metal floating around that might cause danger to someone at some time in the future. So I said that I had heard the pretty reasonable proposal that there were 573 and everyone said, "Yes, that is probably about right". I had actually made up that proposal myself. Then I wanted to know how many military satellites there were, what were their purpose and how long they would be up there for. They said that they could do almost anything in the world, but then I realised that it was not so long ago that two bright entrepreneurs decided that they would try to find the source of the Nile. Unfortunately, there was a death due to tribalism in Uganda, but none of the satellites could find the source of the Nile.
	Having spent some time considering developments, I realised that we should probably be spending more on satellite communication. Just out of interest, because, as your Lordships may know, we have Skynet 5 and Paradigm, which enable the Armed Forces to communicate with their families, I spoke to them yesterday. I said, "Can I say something about this?". They said, "We must check with the MoD first, because it is our client and might be upset". So perhaps the Minister might say something about Skynet 5 and our forces' ability to communicate. As that communication improves—it will be only a few years before, with a hand-held piece of metal with a screen on it, we will be able to communicate worldwide without wires—we should devote a little more attention to space.
	Our space budget is half that of Italy, which is half that of Germany, which is half that of France. I do not know as much as I would like about this, but I asked: "Is it possible to disable a satellite?" They said, "Probably; what would you suggest?". I said, "We used to have anti-radar stuff during the war. We dropped silver paper out of aeroplanes to destroy signals. Would it be possible to drop silver paper or metallic sand around satellites?". The answer was yes. Have we given some thought to what happens if satellites are disabled and what is their role in future?
	I am not sure where we go from here. We have 20,000 troops in Germany, 8,000 in Iraq and 1,500 in Afghanistan. If we need to be able to deploy more, we know that we have that capability. We know that we will have new aircraft carriers but, to me, above all else, we must equip our forces here and abroad to the highest standards—at least as high as their capabilities.

Lord Boyce: My Lords, I, too, welcome this debate and the opportunity to raise further the profile of our Armed Forces. I recognise that such an opportunity occurred last week in the Second Reading of the Armed Forces Bill, but it is good to be able to reflect more specifically on the operational tempo that our sailors, soldiers and airmen are being asked to sustain, especially in Iraq and Afghanistan.
	Attention on our Armed Forces today tends, not unreasonably, to be focused on the high-profile land operations in those two theatres, but myriad other defence tasks are being done, not least by maritime and air units in support of the Middle East operations. I mention for example the regeneration of the Iraqi Navy by the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines in Umm Qasr, which receives little if any publicity but is a real success story.
	Wherever one looks, our servicemen and servicewomen are unquestionably busy. In particular, their task in the difficult Middle East environment in which they are operating—both in terms of weather and the nature of opposition forces—is undoubtedly made tougher by the fact that they find themselves on the one hand pitted against hostile elements who have no concept of playing by any sort of rules and, on the other, by a sometimes hostile British media if our people are not perceived to be obeying every letter of the law and beyond. All that in a campaign that does not enjoy popular support.
	What sustains our service people? It is undoubtedly their training, their professionalism and their esprit de corps and, in theory, the knowledge that their well-being and their interests are being properly safeguarded back home.
	I say "in theory" because practice does not always bear that out, which brings me on to resources. On that point that you will see a weariness and scepticism in the eyes of those on the front line because they know that the front line today is underfunded and no amount of calming "lines to take" given to Ministers cuts any ice with those in operational units who look at their broken kit and know that it will not be repaired because the supply line is bankrupt.
	The fact is that, in the round, our Armed Forces are operating well above the level expected and resourced for under defence planning assumptions. The impact of lack of adequate funding is hurting. The Minister will no doubt claim how well the Armed Forces are doing under this Government, but we all know that defence spending has fallen from 2.6 per cent to 2.2 per cent of GDP in the last few years—no doubt, to an extent, a victim of the Ministry of Defence's own success at delivering at the front end, being a department delivering substantial efficiencies and providing best practice across government—unlike some other government departments, where failure is rewarded with more money.
	On a strategic level, it is that lack of money for running and operational costs, primarily in the support area, that no doubt lay behind the ill-advised decision to slash the destroyer/frigate force by 20 per cent a couple of years ago. It is ill-advised because the destroyer/frigate is the workhorse of the fleet and its deployability, reach and endurance provides a keystone to our defence policy and its expeditionary and global aspirations. Or it should do, but our force is spread too thinly—thinner still if we consider those who are not at the defence planning assumption required states of readiness. I shall say more about that in a minute. How can one ship sensibly manage to patrol the Caribbean, the west coast of Africa and the South Atlantic?
	On the subject of the destroyer/frigate force, and looking to the future procurement programme, what can the Minister tell us about the total number of Type 45 destroyers that we are to have and when? Also, can he say whether there is sufficient provision in the programme for an orderly replacement of the Type 23 frigates, whose end-of-life dates are now well inside the planning horizon? I really hope that it is understood that we are standing into danger if we continue to fail to provide a capable escort force commensurate with our foreign and defence policy aims.
	The Minister may want to reflect on how the dwindling naval force levels of this nation, with its great maritime reputation, will be perceived on the world stage, where there is now a serious debate about the need for a multinational, multidisciplinary, civil/military 1,000-ship navy to deal with the global problems of maritime security and to provide the geographical spread of effort that the problem demands.
	I return to underfunding, an effect of which is especially noticeable in the shortage of cash to support the front line on a day-to-day basis. If the Minister does not accept this, perhaps he can explain why, for example, the Royal Navy has now undergone two years of reduced support. By the way, that is a policy under which, if you are broken you don't get fixed unless you are designated to be at the very highest level of readiness. There have been two years of reduced support period in an attempt to bring down the cost of front-line support. Recovery from that institutionalised unreadiness and regeneration from it will be a long-term process, the full implications of which are not yet fully understood.
	Meanwhile, the shortage of money to support the fleet means that a significant number of ships are not at their required defence planning assumption states of readinesss. That is bad for fighting effectiveness because ships' companies are not properly trained because their equipment is either not there or not working for them to train on. It is also bad for morale because our professional sailors take no joy from knowing that they are under-trained—which, incidentally, can hold up their promotion—and because it is demotivating to be in a unit that cannot do what it is designed to do. It is further demotivating for technicians when they see their working kit being stripped out to service a higher priority unit—appropriately known as "store robbing". I should stress that there are parallel examples in the Army and Air Force.
	Resourcing of the future procurement programme is equally shaky—and that is before the outcome of spending round 2007 starts to fall round our ears. The Minister will no doubt not wish to comment on last week's Evening Standard article claiming that the Treasury is warning that the defence budget will have to be cut to the tune of £1 billion. It would be very nice to hear him say that it is not true.
	On the other hand, it was certainly most encouraging to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer extolling the virtues of defence in promoting stability in his speech at the Mansion House last week as being,
	"strong in defence and fighting terrorism, upholding NATO, supporting our Armed Forces at home and abroad, and retaining our independent nuclear deterrent".
	What a pity such stirring words are not carried over to resourcing properly our Armed Forces, which provide such a major contribution to the global stability that he so rightly craves. Perhaps the Minister will say how the Chancellor of the Exchequer's sentiments square with the statements purported to have come from the Treasury, which I have just mentioned.
	En passant, can the Minister reassure the House that the money for our independent deterrent, which the Chancellor has implied will be replaced, will not be taken from the already underfunded future equipment programme? Were that to happen, another major programme would have to be cancelled to compensate. That in turn would seriously compromise, if not derail, the viability of our defence policy.
	Given the high level of commitments that we are experiencing, it is important more than ever to give attention to sustaining morale—something to which my noble and gallant friend has already alluded. I shall cover just one aspect of that. Morale is fed as much by external as by internal publicity, and the external publicity—public relations at the Ministry of Defence—is bad. Why? I believe it is to no small extent due to the decision taken by the Secretary of State for Defence two years ago to disband the posts of the directors of public relations—or corporate communications, to use the then vernacular. Will the Minister say whether these posts are to be reinstated so that we can regain the confidence of our service people that their spokesman, who manages the defence and media interface, knows what he is talking about? Incidentally, the move would also be thoroughly welcomed by responsible journalists, who would not have as interlocutor a civil servant whose aim is to protect the interests of Ministers and not those of our servicemen, even if such an interlocutor knew what he was talking about.
	The servicemen and servicewomen are doing their best for their country. You cannot do better than put yourself in harm's way, as our soldiers, sailors and airmen are regularly required to do. I am afraid that neither they nor I can detect that the Government are matching their commitment to the budget given to defence.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat a Statement made earlier in another place by the Secretary of State for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The Statement is as follows:
	"Mr Speaker, I would like to make an announcement about our proposals for the second phase of the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme. Today we are announcing the level of our cap. In due course, we will present to the Commission our full and formal national allocation plan.
	"The case for tackling climate change, and the human contribution to it, is overwhelming. The scientific consensus is wide and deep, and the need for international and domestic action, across all aspects of economic and social life, is very strong. In the UK, we can take pride that we are projected to cut our emissions of greenhouses gases by 23 to 25 per cent from 1990 levels over the Kyoto commitment period. That is nearly double the level of the Kyoto targets. However, UK emissions of carbon dioxide are rising. We remain on track to meet our Kyoto targets, but we will, on current trends, fall short of our national goal of a 20 per cent reduction in CO2 emissions by 2010. Our challenge is to take action now to avoid the environmental but also economic and social costs of inaction.
	"The EU Emissions Trading Scheme is the cornerstone of a Europe-wide drive to reduce emissions from high energy intensive sectors. It currently covers around 11,000 installations across Europe, and companies in the scheme in the UK account for some 45 per cent of UK carbon dioxide emissions. The Emission Trading Scheme gives a clear incentive to industry to invest in low carbon technologies of the future, but achieves carbon reductions at lowest possible cost.
	"We are now in the second year of the first phase of the scheme. The results from year one have provided a first opportunity to judge allocation against emissions and most member states' caps for phase 1 do not provide the scarcity the scheme demands. The UK cap was 245 milliontonnes, and our system has worked well. The Government imposed the short fall in allowances on the electricity supply industry and all other sectors were allocated according to need. And, as intended, all but the electricity supply sector are living within their allocations.
	"The Commission has used the information from the first phase to assess what member states' caps should be for phase 2 and set out indicative figures that require substantial cuts from most member states. Phase 1 was in many ways a trial period. Phase 2 coincides with the first Kyoto period (2008-12) and states which do not take the measures necessary within this period to reach their Kyoto targets will either have to purchase Kyoto allowances and credits from other states or will face penalties for missing targets.
	"In March, in our consultation on the draft National Allocation Plan, we set out a range of UK reductions of emissions during phase 2, from 3 million tonnes of carbon to 8 million tonnes. At the time of consultation this was equivalent to a cap of 234 million to 252 million allowances a year, representing 234 million to 252 million tonnes of CO2.
	"There have been important changes since we published the draft National Allocation Plan. Our projections for emissions in 2010 have risen by 3 million tonnes of carbon for the UK as a whole, and by 1.1 million tonnes of carbon for the installations covered by the EU Emissions Trading Scheme.
	"In these circumstances, we believe it is essential to make the maximum effort consistent with the range on which we consulted; in other words, reductions of 8 million tonnes of carbon per year below business as usual, equivalent to a reduction of 29 million tonnes of carbon dioxide. That is now, since the change in projections, equivalent to an annual allocation of 238 million allowances to UK installations covered by the scheme in phase 1. These figures may change slightly to reflect the expansion of the scheme and removal of those installations that emit the smallest amounts of carbon dioxide.
	"We have looked carefully at the possible effects on business and consumers before making our final decision. Our intention is that, for industrial sectors, which include those most open to international competition, allocations should continue to be on the basis of need. In respect of electricity supply, however, the sector is mainly insulated from international competition and this sector's allowances could therefore be set at a lower level, and be subject to auctioning.
	"Phase 2 of the Emissions Trading Scheme allows for a maximum level of auctioning of allowances of 10 per cent. We propose to set the level of auctioning in the UK at 7 per cent. Obviously, the final amount raised by the auction cannot be determined in advance, but it will be substantial.
	"We will build on the trading scheme agreement and go further. We believe there is a major opportunity for the UK not just to invest in renewable energy, other non-nuclear low carbon technologies and energy efficiency, but also to build successful businesses in these fields. We will establish a new joint Defra/DTI environmental transformation fund, administered by my right honourable friend the Trade and Industry Secretary and myself, to grasp this opportunity. Final details of the scale and scope of the fund will be announced in the spending review for implementation, like the Emissions Trading Scheme, in 2008.
	"The EU Emissions Trading Scheme is also linked to a global carbon market and has been a major driver in its development. Project credits—which are credits generated in developing countries through the clean development mechanism, or in other developed countries by joint implementation projects—may be used to help meet the caps set for operators. The use of these credits provides a driver for sustainable energy projects in the developing world and for technology transfer. However, member states need to ensure a balance between domestic and international effort. UK companies are already at the forefront of this market and we want that to continue.
	"In the UK we are providing for the use of these credits to meet up to 66 per cent of the effort in phase 2. In effect, this means that 5.3 million tonnes of carbon—that is, about 19.5 million tonnes of carbon dioxide—from clean development and joint implementation projects can be used, which is equivalent to 8 per cent of the total cap. All installations in the UK may use project credits to meet emissions up to 8 per cent of their allocation.
	"The EU Emissions Trading Scheme has an impact on electricity prices via the cost of carbon allowances. That cost is driven by the cumulative effect of all member states' decisions, not by the decision of any individual member state for the citizens of that country. Many factors drive electricity prices, including global fuel prices and the weather. But our estimate is that the impact of the proposal, relative to the phase 1 cap, will be a one-off rise in industrial energy prices in the region of 1 per cent, and approximately half that for domestic users.
	"Our decision to set the cap at the top end of the range of effort on which we consulted sends a clear message that the emissions trading scheme is here to stay, that the Government are committed to making it work, providing clear, progressive rewards for a shift to low-carbon technologies, and that the UK is determined to maintain its leadership role on this issue. Today's decision will set us on course to deliver a 16.2 per cent reduction in emissions, against 1990 figures, by 2010. We said when we launched the climate change programme review in March this year that it was not the last word. We will use further opportunities, including the energy review and the environmental transformation fund, to help us move progressively towards our 2010 target.
	"EU member states are required to use emissions trading as a means to deliver their Kyoto Protocol commitments for 2008 to 2012. The level of ambition that individual member states set for the reductions to be made by the sectors covered by emissions trading will be an important element in the price of carbon allowances. Now that member states will need to show that they are meeting their Kyoto targets, and with the Commission having phase 1 emissions data, the UK will expect to see more stringent caps enforced in phase 2. We will therefore encourage and support the European Commission in its efforts to ensure tough caps, to provide greater long-term certainty, to help the smooth running of the trading system, and to avoid potential competitive distortions. I spoke to Commissioner Dimas this morning to emphasise this point. It is important that, in the EU, we all push together for a trading scheme which delivers real emission reductions.
	"Phase 2 also forms an important element in the broader consideration of our long-term carbon policy framework. Concurrently, my right honourable friend the Trade and Industry Secretary will next month be reporting the findings of the energy review, in which the Government are reviewing the UK's progress against the medium and long-term energy White Paper goals, including our 2050 carbon reduction goal, and the options for further steps to achieve them.
	"My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has made clear that climate change is a global problem that requires a global solution. This target for phase 2 will support the development of the global carbon market, and we will therefore continue to work with our EU partners to ensure that negotiations for future commitments under the Kyoto Protocol make clear and convincing progress. We will continue to work through the Gleneagles dialogue launched through the UK presidency of the G8 to search for consensus on the practical measures for tackling climate change. The case for taking action is overwhelming. The speed at which the world responds to that case will determine the effectiveness and the positive economic impact of our response. Today's announcement takes another step towards our long-term objective of a 60 per cent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 2050".
	My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made by his right honourable friend in another place two or three hours ago. It is no less welcome for the fact that it has come as a surprise to most of those working in this field. Inevitably, with a Statement of some length and considerable detail, it gives rise to a number of questions.
	The collapse of the emissions trading market early this year highlighted the weakness of the approach of the European nation states to the allocation process in phase 1. It also highlighted the weakness of the Commission's position on adjudication and control of those bids, which is what they were at that stage. The effect in the market was a huge loss of faith in emissions trading as a scheme to limit carbon dioxide emissions. We cannot afford that. It also caused considerable loss of faith in the intention and determination of mainland European nations to tackle and limit their emissions of carbon dioxide. We cannot afford that either. Phase 2 must work to much greater effect than phase 1 was able to do.
	In those circumstances, one has to ask whether the Government are satisfied about the determination of the European Commission to ensure that it arrives at allocations that will be effective at nation-state level. In phase 1, there was some question about who was responsible and whether nation states could bid or the Commission should set the target. Are the Government now satisfied that other nation states in Europe are sufficiently determined to set realistic targets to make this scheme work? Once again, we cannot afford any failure in that regard.
	Finally, are the Government satisfied that the European Commission has a sufficiently robust system of audit that is—to borrow a phrase from the Government—"fit for purpose" to ensure that the operation of phase 2 will be real and effective, which phase 1 was not?
	I welcome the Government's intention to auction a proportion of the allocations in this new phase. The Commission permits the auctioning of up to 10 per cent of the allocation. It would be interesting to know why and how the Government arrived at 7 per cent. That said, having this earlier income from the sale of credits that people have to purchase at an assessed value must help to create a more realistic market, provided the total of the allocations is correct. In another place, the Minister's right honourable friend the Secretary of State "guesstimated"—I think that would be the term—that the auction might produce about £150 million. It would be interesting to know whether the Government have any ideas about how those funds might be used. It is essential that that income, which comes with the direct purpose of limiting carbon emissions, should be used to fund schemes that will aid that purpose. However, I am all too aware that dedicating funds for a particular purpose when they come in is rather difficult for the Treasury, which prefers to take money into the general fund and then reallocate it, often to something rather different.
	I also note the creation of the Defra/DTI Environmental Transformation Fund. We do not yet know how resourced it is to be or whether it is to be used only for investment in the general renewable energy field, although it looks as though that might be the case. Most importantly, we do not know what will be its relationship to the Carbon Trust and others who are already working in the field. It would be interesting if the Minister could give us more information on that.
	This is a helpful Statement. It is a move in the right direction. It is to be hoped that phase 2 will work properly. I look forward to the Minister's reply.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, we on these Benches also welcome the Statement. It gives us just the skeleton and will be fleshed out by the formal national allocation plan and a lot of my questions will be reserved for that phase of the business. However, phase 2 is important and is one of the main tools that this country has for getting us on track to meet our Kyoto targets. Now that we have reached phase 2, we have to avoid some of the failures of phase 1.
	One of the most difficult things across industry and for the public of phase 1 is that it was not very clear that the polluter pays. This issue got lost in a blizzard of figures, percentages and statistics. People really want to know whether this is being effective in reducing carbons emissions.
	The Minister said that the provision would cover 45 per cent of our admissions of the sectors included. That is critical. The Minister has been silent on a couple of areas because they will fall within the fuller plan, and on whether aviation and transport in any form will be included in the full plan. There is a disconnect with which the Government I am sure struggles, which is common in every government in Europe—that is, we have national allocation plans within a single market.
	At the moment energy and the allocating plans are a national matter. That makes it very difficult. Will the Minister give his reaction to the setting of the German levels? When we reach phase 3, will there be any thought of setting the levels at a European level and therefore making sure that no country falls for the temptation of setting a lower level on the basis of safeguarding its industries?
	I was cheered to hear the Minister make the announcement about the Defra/DTI Environmental Transformation Fund. Is the intention that the auctioning process will produce the revenue for the fund? It was not clear to me where the revenue would come from. I imagine that the Government have thought about the size of the fund. I see that the scale and scope of it will be announced in the spending review for implementation in 2008, so there is a while to wait. Will the Minister give some idea where the proceeds from the auction will go?
	I have a couple of final questions on the shape of the national allocation plan. What sort of incentives will there be to ensure that new entrants invest in low carbon fuels and efficient technologies? Again for new entrants, will there be clear definitions and consistent applications of the relevant provisions to support incentive structures and fairness? For the plants for which closure is the only option, will this scheme sufficiently push to close those old, inefficient and highly polluting plants?
	These Benches welcome this very important tool. It takes us through to 2012. If the first phase was a learning curve for not making the same mistakes in the second phase, perhaps it is disappointing that we have not ironed out all the faults. Early on in this 2007–08 period we must ensure that by the time we get into the post-Kyoto scenario, which will be phase 3, the scheme is as perfect as possible at a European level.

Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I welcome the Statement on this important subject and the Government's decision to set the cap at the top end of the range of effort on which they consulted. But the cost of carbon allowances, and therefore their impact, is driven, as the Statement pointed out, by the cumulative effect of all member states' decisions and the level of ambition of individual member states.
	The review published this week by the Carbon Trust chief economist pointed out that if member states do not demand sufficiently large emissions reductions, the system will unravel and be ineffective. It is now clear that, during phase 1, there was considerable over-allowance by individual member states and by member states collectively. As the Statement put it,
	"most member states' caps for phase 1 do not provide the scarcity the scheme demands".
	It follows that cuts in allowances for phase 2 must not relate to those made in phase 1, but need to be assessed against a baseline on the recalculated 2005 emissions data that are now available.
	The Minister said that the UK will expect more stringent caps to be enforced in phase 2, and will support the European Commission in its efforts to ensure tough caps. Good—I welcome that—but will the Government make every possible effort to ensure that the reductions are made from the revised data and not from the over-allowances for phase 1? I think the Minister began to indicate that that was the Government's position when he responded to a previous question, but I think it is the crucial issue on which the industry awaits an answer. Can he also assure me that the UK has given the lead by calculating our allowances on that basis?

Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I join the praise which the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, has given for this Statement. But, significantly, the United States is noticeable only for its absence from helping to resolve this issue. How are the Government and the European Union facing that issue?

Lord Ramsbotham: rose to call attention to the case for a Women's Justice Board to oversee the treatment of and conditions for women in the criminal justice system; and to move for Papers.
	My Lords, in moving this Motion I am very conscious that this is by no means the first time that this issue has been brought before your Lordships' House. In preparing for the debate, I looked up the last time that women in prison were debated. In a debate in October 2004, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, in summing up as Minister for the Home Office, said:
	"When noble Lords read this debate in Hansard, they will see that what I am basically describing is the women's justice board, which was advocated but has not yet been created by the Home Office. I supported it from this Dispatch Box when I was a Home Office Minister. It has still not been brought about, but I think that we are doing it in all but name. The proof will be in the pudding. It is not my job to make policy on the hoof. Nevertheless, the recommendation was made and it has widespread support, but it has not been put into operation by the Home Office".—[Official Report, 28/10/04; col. 1418.]
	My reason for initiating the debate was triggered by the recent announcement of the re-roling of Brockhill women's prison in Worcestershire into a male prison; and particularly by a comment about that by my successor Anne Owers in her annual report as Chief Inspector of Prisons for 2004–05. She said:
	"The proposal to re-role Brockhill suggests inadequate attention to, and even marginalisation of, the needs of women. Eighty per cent of the adult women lived within 50 miles of the prison, and many were trying to maintain contact with families and dependent children. A brand-new, purpose-built and much needed detoxification and healthcare centre had recently been built, to meet the specific needs of women".
	In preparing for the debate I also contacted a number of people. I was particularly interested in a comment from Madeleine Moon, the Labour MP for Bridgend. She bemoaned that in addition to what had happened, it made it even more difficult for women from Wales to go to a women's prison near that province.
	This is not a new problem. Indeed, looking back over the history of the Prison Service, you see that frequently there have been disasters followed by various inquiries which resulted in change, but unless there is a disaster there does not seem to be change. The riots in Strangeways in 1990 were followed by one of the great penal documents of all time, in which my noble and learned friend Lord Woolf and my predecessor, Sir Stephen Tumim, made the most perceptive comments about what should happen and, in particular, a concentration on appropriate management. In 1993 and 1994, there were escapes from the high security prisons at Whitemoor and Parkhurst, which were investigated by a retired Chief Inspector of Constabulary, Sir John Woodcock, and a former companion of mine, Sir John Learmont. They recommended the appointment of a director of high security prisons, the result of which has been one part of the Prison Service with someone responsible and accountable for all those prisoners and, until this year, no escape from a high security prison. I was told that the reason people were so keen on that was to avoid embarrassing Ministers. It did, however, result in the sacking of the director-general of the Prison Service.
	When I inspected Holloway, my first inspection as Chief Inspector of Prisons in December 1995, I was absolutely appalled by what I found. Of the myriad memories I have of that, three things stand out. The first was finding that women were routinely chained while in labour. That must have been known to the prison authorities, and by implication to Ministers, and yet it was being condoned. The second was being shown the official Prison Service forms on which injuries to women prisoners were recorded. The forms contained the outline of a male body because the service had no forms for women. The third was going after the inspection to see the director-general of the Prison Service, asking whether I could meet the director of women and being told that there wasn't one. When I asked who laid down the policy for women, he said: "A civil servant in the policy office". I then asked, "Who oversees that policy?", and was told that it was the area manager. I went on to ask, "Who sees to it that there is consistency of policy between what happens to women in a prison in Lancashire and those in a prison in London?". The reply was, "No one".
	On the question of time, that conversation with the director-general of the Prison Service took place the equivalent of the whole of World War I and the whole of World War 2 bar the last three months ago—and still there is no director of women, although there has been one on the way.
	I decided that I should have a report to carry out a thematic review of women in prison. I should like to read out a paragraph from my preface to that report, written in July 1997:
	"Central to this report is our strongly held view that the women's prison system ought to be managed, as an entity, by one Director, with responsibility and accountability for all that happens within the women's estate. As is pointed out over and over again, there is an urgent need for a thorough analysis of the needs of women prisoners, and a national strategy for implementing and managing policies appropriate to satisfying them. The present system of geographical management works positively against the all-important consistency that the treatment of such a separate group of prisoners requires. Our recommendations are, I hope, clear and unambiguous, and are put forward for examination by the Prison Service in the context of their own strategic review of the estate. But they also have an underlying purpose, which is to encourage the Prison Service to make better arrangements for the separate management of the fast-rising numbers of women in prison, and to provide regimes appropriate to their needs, not merely to adapt those designed for men. This does not require another policy desk, it requires someone charged with implementing policy, as well as assessing, obtaining and allocating the necessary resources of staff, money and facilities".
	I had 160 recommendations, of which I will mention only two. First, transitional prisons in urban centres should be developed to serve the resettlement needs of female prisoners. Secondly, managers in women's prisons should give more emphasis to ensuring that the suicide prevention system is used properly.
	Since then, I have counted 31 reports of various kinds from various organisations, all saying roughly the same as we said in 1997. As my successor illustrated in a report that she published only this year, much of that remains to be done. I should like to quote from some of the reports. Justice for Women: the need for reform, published by the Prison Reform Trust in 2000, made the specific recommendation that a national women's justice board should be established forthwith as a separate authority, charged with the development and implementation of policy for women offenders, consistent with all the principles. That should cover women's supervision, rehabilitation and support centres, for which a network was recommended; geographically dispersed custodial units to replace the existing system, which has silos in inappropriate places; and a great amount of attention to transition between prison and the community.
	That was followed by a follow-up report of mine, published in 2001. I went through all the recommendations that I had made and found that an awful lot had not been achieved. That was followed by a very good report from the Commission on Women and the Criminal Justice System, by the Fawcett Society, which contains a number of very relevant points. The commission was chaired by Vera Baird MP, and in its report, published in 2004, it talks about women faring particularly badly in the system because their specific needs are not being looked at. It talked about a review which had been carried out by the Prison Service in which a separate management system had been put in place but was now dismantled. We were concerned that without a specific structure to deal with women offenders at both policy and operational level, the National Offender Management Service will fail to address fully the nature of female offending.
	There have been two follow-up reports, which I do not have time to quote, both saying the same thing. As they pointed out, it has been said that a women's operational management board is not needed because the Minister who is replying to this debate and, at that time, the two Ministers responsible for penal affairs in the House of Commons, the chief executive of the National Offender Management Service and the National Offender Manager were all women. It was therefore felt that there was no need for anyone else to consider women's issues.
	I fear that the evidence, particularly that produced by my successor, suggests that that is not so. I quote from her last study, entitled Women in Prison, in which she says:
	"The assignment of a single operational manager to manage women's prisons in 2000 brought about greater consistency and more sharing of best practice . . . However, during 2004, the women's estate was disbanded and the management of women's prisons reverted to local areas. This has raised significant concerns that women-specific policies and procedures may be diluted or lost; particularly as there is now no specific policy lead for women within the National Offender Management Service. It is imperative that finances are ring-fenced for the women's estate as well as pressure applied to ensure that these policies and procedures are fully implemented".
	I have quoted all those people because they are experts in this field and they are all speaking from experience. What you are hearing is the true voice of people who have been looking and reporting on the facts.
	The aim given to the criminal justice system in 1997 was to protect the public by preventing crime. It is a good aim, but it was given to the wrong people. The prison and probation services are engaged only when a crime has been committed. The aim is to prevent reoffending or, as was so well put by the governor of a young offender establishment, to prevent the next victim. That matches very neatly with the statement of purpose of the Prison Service, which is:
	"It is our duty to keep securely those committed by the courts, to treat them with humanity and to help them to lead useful and law-abiding lives".
	To do that effectively the Prison Service has to make provision for many different types of prisoner, with their myriad different problems, and to put in place a management structure that can ensure that their treatment and conditions match the statement of purpose. Exactly the same applies to the probation service with its responsibility for all those who have to serve their sentence in the community.
	My case for the appointment of a women's justice board, already recognised by the Government as I have just quoted, boils down to this. The needs of women of whatever age who come into the hands of the criminal justice system are different from those of men, as are the domestic pressures with which they have to cope, including family responsibilities. If they are to be helped to live useful and law-abiding lives, those differences need to be recognised and appropriate treatment and conditions provided. There are far too many women in prison and far too many are held far too far away from their domestic and family responsibilities. I am therefore extremely interested to know what factors allowed the Minister to make the change at Brockhill, as opposed to the other factors that must have been put to her for leaving it where it was. It is the only women's prison in the West Midlands. With 80 per cent of the people there within 50 miles of home, it was the best situated prison in the country for them.
	We are continually hearing extolled the virtues of the vision of NOMS—because NOMS is not yet a reality. The reality is that it is 1,647 civil servants and two additional tiers of management. It is not much else at the moment. One of the Government's successes has been the formation of the Youth Justice Board, particularly the multidisciplinary youth offending teams, which are part of the responsibility of local authorities. In recommending a women's justice board along the lines of that proposed by the Prison Reform Trust, I am also recommending the formation of adult offending teams—male and female—also to be the responsibility of local authorities. The beauty of that concept is that it makes provision for local agencies—public, private, and not for profit—to be included in work done with local offenders. Moreover, if the supervision of less serious offenders were made the responsibility of such offending teams, it would free-up the desperately overstretched probation service to concentrate on the heavy-end offenders—offenders whose treatment, or lack of it, continues to excite hysterical attention in the media.
	I hope that the Government will look at all the facts and evidence and realise how often so many people have already put the proposal to them. Rather than yet another report—and this is not an aspersion at all on the noble Baroness, Lady Corston, who has been given yet another report to do—instead of programmes, bodies and everything else, the Government should consider history. It tells us that necessary change happens only when someone is made responsible and accountable for it. That is what this board would do. I beg to move for Papers.

The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, for initiating this important debate. My noble friend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester, who is also the bishop for prisons, regrets that he is not able to be present in your Lordships' House this afternoon, but I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in this timely debate.
	Your Lordships may be aware that a diocesan bishop has the privilege of paying unannounced visits to any prison in his diocese, and I for one make full use of this opportunity. I am aware that the general public, and indeed many politicians, are all too happy to ignore what might be happening behind closed doors and high walls. The mood of the popular media at present is to focus on the needs and the rights of the victims of crime. While no one can argue with that, Christians at least have a New Testament mandate to visit prisoners and to pay attention to their needs, too, and many Christians do so.
	Today's debate focuses on the needs of women in the criminal justice system. It is not generally known that our Mothers' Union is working in 17 women's prisons. For example, at Eastwood Park women's prison, MU members visit the mothers and babies unit, talking to the mothers, helping them to play with their children and taking the babies out into the community to help to establish links there. That is typical of the human connections that the MU tries to make with women who feel that they might have lost everything from their former lives, something that is particularly important when women are imprisoned many miles away from family and friends and so are getting few visitors. The Mothers' Union works hard to maintain, strengthen and enhance back-home relationships so that the network of family or friends is still there on release.
	From our visits, we are very aware that there are individual human beings behind any statistics that we or others might collect, but those statistics are deeply worrying. Women are two and a half times less likely to offend than men. When they do, they are more likely than men to commit "acquisitive" crimes. According to Home Office statistics, theft and handling stolen goods account for 60 per cent of female offending compared with 36 per cent for men. The second most common type is drug offences, accounting for 10 per cent of female offending compared with 20 per cent of male offenders. In general, women commit more minor offences, have shorter criminal careers and are less likely than men to commit violent offences. One-third of women in prison have no previous convictions and more than 70 per cent are in custody for the first time.
	Women make up 6 per cent of the prison population. Given that they are such a small minority, it is not surprising that their confinement in a basically male-oriented system has damaging effects. But there is evidence that women are disadvantaged at each stage in the criminal justice process: in police custody; in relating to their lawyers; and on probation, where their rehabilitative needs are not always met by mixed-sex programmes.
	In recent years, there has been a steep rise in the number of women imprisoned—a near threefold increase since 1993. This rise owes more to sentencing policy than to an increase in offending. Although there is some argument about whether women are sentenced more severely than men, a woman convicted of theft or handling in the Crown Court is twice as likely to go to prison now as in 1991, and in magistrates' courts the chance of receiving a custodial sentence has risen sevenfold.
	The majority of women offenders and prisoners have a history of suffering abuse and violence, which is interlinked with other problems. A quarter of adult women prisoners have been in care; two-thirds have a drug habit, and they tend to be more used than men to hard drugs; and 70 per cent suffer from two or more mental disorders. The consequences are seen in the incidence of self-harm and suicide in prison. In 2004, half the prisoners resuscitated following self-harm were women, and less serious self-harm is commonplace. In 2003, 30 per cent of all women prisoners had harmed themselves compared with 6 per cent of men. The number of incidents of self-harm in 2003 had doubled in two years. Fifteen per cent of suicides were by women—again, a highly disproportionate percentage.
	The impact of imprisonment on women is considerable, often involving loss of accommodation and separation from children. It is estimated that almost 18,000 children are separated from their mothers each year. Then there is the impact of increased financial problems, loss of capacity for paid work and increased stress. In one survey, 38 per cent of women prisoners questioned said that they expected to be homeless on release. These problems are aggravated by the dispersion of women across the system with 19 prisons unevenly distributed across England, and none at all in Wales, leading to some women being held at long distances from home with difficulties, as I have said, in visiting and highly disruptive effects on family life. In 2004, half of women prisoners were held more than 50 miles from their home town and a quarter were held more than 100 miles away.
	Despite much excellent work in difficult circumstances, prison healthcare and general treatment of women are often inadequate to meet their deep-seated needs. Mentally ill women are often over-medicated. A study at Holloway prison revealed that 33 per cent of women were taking medication on arrival but that this rose to more than 90 per cent during sentence. Substance abuse programmes are often over-subscribed and not followed through on release. Provision for those serving short sentences is particularly poor. Help with housing and employment in preparation for release is often lacking. The effect of those shortcomings is reflected in the rise in reconviction rates for women. In 1999, it had risen to 55 per cent within two years, compared with 40 per cent in the early 1990s.
	The minority status of women in the prison system is reflected not only in their dispersion but in the highly disruptive relocations as a short-term response to overcrowding throughout the system—which we have heard a little about—leading to both the rapid re-roling of men's prisons to admit women and the re-roling of women's prisons to meet the problem of male overcrowding. My noble friends the Bishops of Worcester and Chelmsford tell me that the re-roling is causing major traumas at present in Brockhill and Bullwood Hall prisons. The overall effect is to intensify the mismatch between women's special needs and the available facilities and expertise.
	There is a widespread recognition that the way in which women's needs are treated in the system needs to change. There is a broad consensus that change needs to happen in three areas: remand and sentencing policies to take better account of women's needs; more suitable forms of punishment, making custody a genuine last resort; and better provision to prevent offending and reoffending. That is not to say that women should not be held to account and punished appropriately for particular offences, but it recognises that the prior experience, the offending profile and the practical needs of women are distinctive and need to be considered as such. Such radical innovations would require something like a women's justice board to focus on gender-specific needs, just as the Youth Justice Board has pioneered and consolidated locally based, multi-agency programmes in the field of youth justice. I hope that the Minister in her reply will indicate that the Government are open to moving in that direction.

The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend for securing this important debate. I strongly support his call for a strong, clear focus on the particular needs of women in prison. There is much ground to cover, so I hope that noble Lords will forgive me for reading from a script. I will seek to concentrate on the needs in prison of pregnant women, women giving birth and recovering from childbirth, and infants and toddlers if there is time. In particular, I shall ask the Minister for her response to the recent report by the Maternity Alliance, Getting it Right, on services for pregnant women, new mothers and babies in prison, and its call for a review of services.
	Before doing so, I reiterate my support for my noble friend's call for an improved strategic focus on women in custody. We have seen significant benefits accrue to children in custody through the Youth Justice Board. Louise Casey was appointed the tsar for rough sleeping, with a target of reducing rough-sleeper numbers by two-thirds within three years. She transformed services for rough sleepers. The winter prior to her arrival, I spent one evening a week in a cold weather shelter for young people. I was appalled that the most vulnerable 18 to 25 year-olds, many of them substance misusers or with mental disorders, were being cared for by the least experienced young staff. Within a year, the new service could not have been more different. I had the pleasure of serving under the new manager of the cold weather project for several months; I admired him. In particular, he initiated weekly consultation sessions with the young people in the hostel, which were immensely successful.
	I warmly welcome the review of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate's provision for children and families initiated by the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton of Upholland. The so-called children's champion, Jeremy Oppenheim, director of the National Asylum Support Service and a former director of social services, has the experience and authority to make a difference. My noble friend's call for a renewal of the focus on women has my strongest support. I have seen what a difference such a concentration can make on those who are most chaotic and on where the most resource-intensive services need to be focused.
	I turn to prisons and pregnant women, new mothers, babies and toddlers, on which there is every reason to invest in the very best services. Quite apart from our concern for the welfare of those children and adults, excellent interventions at this time can help to break the cycle of criminality, anti-social behaviour and social dependency from one generation to another. Last Friday, the Cassel Hospital, a centre for the treatment of adults, adolescents and families with personality disorders, held a conference on the impact of parents' severe personality difficulties on their children's development. The Department of Health guidance on the development of services for such disorders cites the Cassel Hospital as a notable practice site. The paper, from Beate Schumacher, a psychoanalyst practising at the Cassel, highlighted that many experts considered personality disorders as being closely rooted in early parental care, particularly in care by the mother. One pattern that Ms Schumacher observed was mothers who had had empty, loveless childhoods seeking to rescue themselves by giving birth to a child. The child, to their minds, would make up for all that void. One abusive mother said:
	"I can't live without my child. All he wants is me. He is my world".
	Once such a mother is confronted with the reality that her child is incessantly demanding and will eventually grow away from her, she may often harm or neglect it.
	The charity Mind recently arranged for a mother who had suffered from maternal depression to speak to parliamentarians. She ran her own business and was educated and affluent. In the course of her many months of depression, she found herself taking pleasure in the tears of her baby and preparing on two occasions simply to leave that child. Some 70 per cent of women sentenced to prison have two or more mental disorders and it would be welcome if the Minister could give details of the percentage of those with personality disorders. Tessa Baraden, a child psychologist based at the Anna Freud Centre who established the infant psychotherapy service at Holloway women's prison, described many of her clients as being at the severe end of personality disorders.
	To break the cycle of crime and social dependency, provision for pregnant women, new mothers and infants in prisons should be the best that we can afford. In my recent visit, it was good to see Her Majesty's Government's investment in mother and baby units at Rainsbrook Secure Training Centre—in some ways, it is an excellent facility. It is to be welcomed that child psychotherapy is being made available at Holloway prison and that it may be expanded.
	The move Her Majesty's Government made in transferring responsibility for health in the Prison Service to the National Health Service has been widely welcomed. However, the important Maternity Alliance report highlights many weaknesses. Over 600 women receive ante-natal care in prison each year, with over 100 women giving birth during their sentences. Some 80 mother and baby places across England are spread between seven prisons, but provision for pregnant prisoners is inadequate, as their needs often go unmet. There is no Prison Service order on pregnancy and there are stark variations in ante-natal services across the prison estate. As there is no Prison Service order, there is no description of a minimum-standard service that the woman should receive. Therefore there is no guidance, for instance, on how to restrain an agitated or aggressive pregnant woman. There is a lack of support available for women in mother and baby units, which is particularly worrying in light of those women's increased levels of depression and anxiety. Some do not feel fully involved in a decision about their baby's future—that is also a cause for concern—and 8 per cent of those children are taken into care.
	Aspects of Her Majesty's Government's policy towards these women are to be welcomed, but there are also a number of important shortcomings. It is vital that these women receive excellent support to bond well with their children and to prevent future crime or dependency. Therefore, I ask the Minister to reassure the House by saying that she will give active consideration to a review of services for pregnant women, new mothers and babies in the Prison Service, as the Maternity Alliance strongly recommends in its report. I look forward to her response.

Baroness Neuberger: My Lords, I, too, pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, for instituting this debate, and getting us to discuss the issues of vulnerable prisoners, particularly women, yet again. I shall also briefly address the right reverend Prelate, who argued that it was a Christian tradition to visit prisoners. All the world's faiths have a tradition of looking after the vulnerable. Certainly, my own tradition believes that we should break the prisoners free from their chains, as in the Book of Isaiah.
	One reason the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, is right to press for a women's justice board is that some of the worst statistics come from the women's prisons, where suicide rates, as we know, are so high, where self harm is commonplace and the care of offenders seems wholly inadequate in many cases. From 1,811 women behind bars in 1994, only 12 years ago, the figure, as the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, has stated, was 4,409 last Friday. The women are vastly overcrowded. Between January and June 2004, 10 women committed suicide, compared to 14 in the whole of 2003. The rates continue to rise.
	As the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, has said, many young offenders are parents. Facilities are inadequate both for the women who are mothers and their babies. These women are vulnerable, and the mothers are often the most vulnerable of all. Yet the Prison Service, is, as a matter of course, taking babies from their mothers before they are a year old, even though most psychologists—of a variety of different opinions on almost everything else—agree that early separation can lead to long-term psychological problems for the child.
	Mental illness and drug problems are commonplace. A case I find perhaps the most moving of many I have read over the last few years—to which the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, referred in her remarks on Styal—is that of Sarah Campbell from Cheshire. She came from a conservative background and eventually ended up a heroin addict. She was sentenced to three years in Styal, a women's prison, after hassling an elderly man for drugs, who, petrified by Sarah and her friends, had a heart attack and died.
	Sarah had spent six months on remand and, to her great delight, had become drug free. But she was convicted of manslaughter and sent to Styal, where she took an overdose within hours of beginning her sentence and died three days before her nineteenth birthday. At court, before her sentence, the liaison duty probation officer and a duty psychiatric nurse both warned that she might harm herself. It made no difference. Her mother, formerly a quiet, well behaved civil servant, has become what people describe as an "angry, vociferous risk-taker". Her experience of her daughter's death, a child with a known history of depression and drug dependency, has made her so furious, and opened her eyes to the fact that women are treated with medieval barbarity by our prison system:
	"More and more women are being sent to prison when clearly they should be being treated for mental illness—and conditions once they reach jail are horrific . . . I have seen women who have used scouring pads and hairgrips to maim themselves".
	Women prisoners are three times as likely as their male counterparts to commit suicide, despite being only 6 per cent of the prison population. They account for about half of all incidents of self harm. Pauline Campbell, Sarah Campbell's mother, argues that women in prison are an invisible issue—not so much now, thanks to the efforts of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham. Nevertheless, they do not commit violent crimes and their offences are mostly theft, drugs or unpaid bills. Two-thirds of women in prison suffer from at least one neurotic disorder, such as depression, anxiety or phobias, and more than half suffer from a personality disorder. Among the rest of the population, as the Bromley briefings tell us so powerfully, less than a fifth of women suffer from such disorders. Half of the women in prison are on some prescribed medication, such as antidepressants or antipsychotic medicines, and there is evidence, as the right reverend Prelate said, that the use of such medication increases in custody. So what is the point?
	Even more worryingly, of all the women sent to prison, some 37 per cent say they have attempted suicide at some time, and nearly two-thirds of them have a drug problem. A quarter of them were in local authority care as a child, and the picture is one of illness, depression, loneliness, and addiction: not necessarily good reasons for seeing them in prison.
	In an interview in last Saturday's Daily Telegraph, the Chief Inspector of Prisons, Anne Owers, said:
	"In one women's prison there were six serious self-harm incidents a day. They were regularly cutting women down from ligatures. One woman was not only cutting her arms up but inserting Biros into her veins".
	That is the situation we are seeing in our prisons. What is the point of the women being there?
	Penny Mellor, a former prisoner, wrote movingly in the British Medical Journal about life in a women's prison:
	"My experience inside three very different prisons was in itself very depressing; listening to the screaming and crying all night leaves you weary, alarms going off at all hours day and night as yet another inmate tries to kill themselves makes you jumpy and renders you physically exhausted, your heart sinking and your mind praying that it won't be somebody you've grown fond of that's hurt themselves; prison officers' faces etched in stress related lines as they run to unlock a door not knowing what they will find on the other side, no wonder members of the Prison Service—
	the article was written some time ago—
	"are looking to strike over conditions and pay".
	She continued:
	"If you weren't mentally ill when you went in, you certainly are after a very short space of time".
	Some people might argue that that is special pleading from a former prison inmate, but it appears that it is not. Women prisoners' suicide and self-harm rates are now at a record high. The introduction of the NHS as the provider of mental health services in prisons is a good thing and is much to be welcomed, but, as yet, it has not made much difference. As Juliet Lyon, director of the Prison Reform Trust, said on launching her report on what was happening about suicide, self-harm and the mentally distressed:
	"Prison is a punishment of last resort. It is cruel to lock up mentally ill women and it does lasting harm to them and their families".
	Everyone agrees that prisons are not the place for vulnerable people and that women tend to be more vulnerable in prison than men. So why do the Government not listen? Perhaps the Minister can tell us whether it is just a desire to be punitive. Do they truly believe that people have a better chance of treatment for drugs and mental illnesses inside prison? Or is it simply that it would not play well in the media to say that women should not be sent to prison unless they have committed violent offences?
	The interview with the Chief Inspector of Prisons, Anne Owers, published in last Saturday's Daily Telegraph—which is not necessarily known for its sympathetic views towards prisoners—reported:
	"There has, she says, been a 'huge increase' in people in prison. 'Prisons are often acting as mental hospitals and that is not what they are designed to be,' . . . 'We are reaping the harvest of closing down our large mental hospitals without providing either proper community care or sufficient secure mental health care. That partially accounts for the overcrowding'.
	"At the same time, she believes that too many drug addicts are being incarcerated when they could be treated, more cheaply and more effectively, in the community. 'I met a couple of sisters who I'd seen before in the prison. One of them said, 'I came out but got back on to drugs. I was so ill I felt I needed to get back into the safety of the prison. So I said to my sister let's go and shoplift from M&S'.
	"At one women's prison, Ms Owers says, 80 per cent of the inmates are serious drug addicts. Its prisoners have two or three times the national average level of mental illness, a third of them have tried to commit suicide and most have experienced sexual abuse.
	"We are expecting prisons to be our 'too difficult' tray, a place where we put people because we don't know what else to do with them . . . Prisons are not meant to be places where we mop up every social ill. They should be places to deal with, punish and deter serious criminals".
	I believe that the Chief Inspector of Prisons and her predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, are right. We need a women's justice board to tackle these issues. What is going on now is unacceptable in a civilised country. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some comfort and say that the Government are changing their mind.

Lord Acton: My Lords, with the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, introducing this debate, the most I can aspire to be is a Rosencrantz or Guildenstern to his Hamlet. I am delighted that I shall repeat some things said by other noble Lords because I believe that they merit saying again and again.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, stressed, my noble friend Lord Rooker in his reply to the debate on women in prison on 28 October 2004 said of a women's justice board:
	"Nevertheless, that recommendation was made and it has widespread support, but it has not been put into operation by the Home Office".—[Official Report, 28/10/04; col. 1481.]
	Today's debate can be summed up in two words: why not? This afternoon my noble friend has a golden opportunity to explain why not, or, better still, to change policy and accept a women's justice board.
	In Justice for Women: the need for reform, the report of the committee on women's imprisonment, chaired by Professor Dorothy Wedderburn and published in 2000, the central recommendation was,
	"A national women's justice board should be established immediately as a statutory commissioning body which would resemble in many respects the national Youth Justice Board".
	Wedderburn envisaged a powerful authority with its own budget and management structure to oversee the arrangements for women's imprisonment and punishment in the community; to provide the driving force to establish local centres; to develop programmes based in communities; and to ensure that prisons for women are efficiently and humanely managed to provide suitable conditions and regimes. The authority would be responsible for ensuring that programmes, whether in custody or in the community, achieve not only targets such as the number of places made available or the numbers completing particular programmes but also satisfactory settlement, integration and reduced offending.
	Six years have passed since Wedderburn reported without the establishment of such a potent authority. I ask the Minister to reflect on a few developments in the absence of a women's justice board. At the end of September 2004, female prisoners were held an average of 62 miles from their homes, with disturbing implications for their children. Distance was an aspect discussed by the noble Baroness, Lady Stern.
	As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark pointed out, in 2003, 30 per cent of women prisoners were reported to have harmed themselves compared to 6 per cent of men. Home Office research has found that 41 per cent of women in prison did not have accommodation arranged on release; only one-third of women prisoners who wanted help and advice about benefits and debt received it; and 65 per cent of women released from prison in 2002 were reconvicted within two years of release. There can be no doubt that a vigorous women's justice board would significantly improve that dreadful picture.
	The Minister is legendary for her silver tongue. May she use it now to convince her Home Office colleagues that it is essential to set up a women's justice board forthwith.

Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, after the eloquent speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, it is clear that I must reassess the role of my gender. I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, for initiating this debate. The House is fortunate to have among its Members just about the most informed and influential of authorities in the country on the subject of prisons. It would be unfair to describe his speech as a wake-up call to the Government, for I am aware of the efforts made by Ministers to address this desperate problem; perhaps we can say that it is the snooze button making itself known.
	The statistics regarding women prisoners speak for themselves and have been referred to by many noble Lords. There has been a dramatic increase in the number of women being incarcerated: a rise of 126 per cent between 1992 and 2002 compared with only 52 per cent for men, and so on.
	This derives from the increasing tendency of courts to remand women in custody. The fact that women offenders commit fewer serious crimes and have shorter criminal careers than men is also important. Many are small players in the drugs train, often simply acting as mules. In turn, that possibly partly explains the startling rise in foreign nationals in custody, of whom about half who are convicted for drug offences are Jamaican.
	The Fawcett Society points out that on the whole women receive lesser sentences than men. However, while a custodial sentence of even one year is not enough to give a woman some form of corrective training, it is quite long enough to break up a family unit. Then there is the obvious extra strain imposed by women prisoners on family life, particularly children. I believe that female prisoners across the country have an average of between two and 2.5 children. The chilling statistic from the Prison Reform Trust is that 17,000 children are separated each year from their mothers by imprisonment, and that 66 per cent of female prisoners are mothers. There is also the risk to which these children are exposed—often separated from their mothers under traumatic circumstances—of social exclusion, and of the children themselves becoming offenders in the future.
	Many noble Lords have spoken eloquently on the problems of suicide and self-harm. They are much greater for women than for men and significantly greater in local prisons than in training prisons.
	Then there is the factor of unintended consequences. Because there are fewer women's prisons than men's prisons, they are unevenly distributed around the country—we have heard that there are none in Wales—and the chances of women being held remote from their families is that much greater. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark reminded us, half of female prisoners are held more than 50 miles from their home town, and a quarter are held more than 100 miles away.
	The subject of churning often features in these debates; it appears to be an intractable feature of the prison system, whereby convicted prisoners have to be transferred to make way for remand prisoners, who have to be kept near their court of appearance. This, again, is a particularly acute problem for women prisoners, with the additional complication of families. I would welcome the Minister's reassurance that this churning of women prisoners in particular is being reduced.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Stern, reminded us of the transportation of females between prisons. Why are there no seat belts in those vehicles? It is because the authorities consider that it is probably better to have women shaken around during transportation, although in some cases they may be heavily pregnant, rather than expose them to the risk of a ligature—that awful word—if a seat belt is provided?
	The case of the six women left behind in Durham prison after the transition to an all-male establishment has passed into folklore among people concerned with the welfare of women in prison. They were largely forgotten. There was a scathing report by the chief inspector following a visit in June 2006. Juliet Lyon of the Prison Reform Trust visited the six women in October 2004, and her account states:
	"Last October, during a PRT visit to Durham prison, I met a woman prisoner covered in open cuts and scars lying on a mattress on her cell floor littered with blood-stained bedding and clothing. From outside the cell door also surrounded by blood-stained material, a male officer was doing his best to talk to and comfort her. The then Governor stated that this woman had been waiting for some time for a transfer to a secure hospital".
	My only comment is that this was nearly two years ago, and we should give the authorities in Durham the benefit of the doubt that things have improved.
	On 26 May, Cathy Stancer of Women in Prison, Juliet Lyon of the Prison Reform Trust and Deborah Coles of Inquest wrote to Dr John Reid, drawing his attention to the distance from home of many women prisoners. They made the simple and sensible suggestion that in response to the strain on accommodation of additional women prisoners and the re-roling of women's prisons to male prisons, it would be a much more effective use of resources to divert women who pose no threat to public safety to specialist drug, alcohol and mental health services, and give them the focused support they need to stop them reoffending. I would welcome a comment on that letter.
	This debate is about the creation of a women's justice board. The scene was set by the publication of the Wedderburn report, a seminal document, but that was published six years ago. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, then the Lord Chief Justice, said it all in the following year:
	"There should be a board responsible for women in the criminal justice system. Its responsibilities in relation to women should be similar to the Youth Justice Board. It should regard its primary responsibility to be to contain the growth of the women prison population".
	The Youth Justice Board has indeed been a success, as the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and others have reminded us.
	The Police and Justice Bill is passing through your Lordships' House as we speak. The whole of the inspectorate system is under review. There surely cannot be a better time to address with urgency the creation of a women's justice board. Many of the factors underlying women's offending such as education, employment, health, childcare and housing, lie beyond the control mechanism of the criminal justice system and the Home Office. The case has surely been made for a multi-agency approach to deal with women's offending. The Youth Justice Board does indeed straddle different agencies and has proved itself a successful body. Let this be a template for a women's justice board.
	Such a board must have a wide remit. It must for instance encompass the awful problems often faced by women on release from prison. Prisoners often speak of the curiously strange world they find themselves in even after short sentences. Add to that the trauma largely peculiar to women prisoners. The Prison Reform Trust estimates that one third of women in prison will find that they have lost their homes and possibly their possessions, as a result of incarceration. The Fawcett Society says:
	"On release, women find themselves in a catch-22 situation; they have problems getting their children back if they do not have a home, but have problems in getting a home if they are not caring for their children".
	They just cannot win.
	The marginalisation of women prisoners has been with us for years. Because they form only 6 per cent of the prison population, it easy to see how their special needs have tended to be ignored, and, to be fair, it did not start with this Government.
	I have one last thought. I once again urge the Minister to look overseas at other countries' practices. For this I am indebted to the Fawcett Society. In Russia, for example, mothers of children under the age of 14 who are convicted of all but the most serious offences are routinely given suspended sentences. In Germany, women are housed under curfew with their children in units attached to prisons but located outside the gates.
	To return to the subject of this debate, something must surely be done. I fear that I am not alone in expressing my disappointment at the Minister's reply on 1 February that the Government have no plans to act on the three proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and his successor Anne Owers, all focusing on the creation of a women's justice board. Against that background, I once again thank the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, for setting the tone for this outstandingly well informed debate. I look forward with anticipation to what the Minister has to tell us. In particular, can she give us any encouragement on the creation of a new women's justice board to fulfil the eloquent forecast of her noble friend Lord Rooker with which this debate started, along with the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I thought that my noble friend preferred to be Guildenstern, but I am quite happy if he wants to rename himself Rosencrantz.
	The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, Juliet Lyon and Her Majesty's Inspector of Prisons, Ann Owers, among many, have raised this issue. Concern was focused on the need to prioritise women offenders' needs with effective management and provision of adequate resources. We, too, recognise and share the concern that the distinct needs of women in the criminal justice system must be met, but there are no current plans to create a women's justice board.
	I was asked to say why. There is currently no separate framework in law for women as there is for young offenders. We have a different structure. Attempting to go down that route could risk marginalising women further, when what is needed is to mainstream the provision that we give women and ensure that under the national offender management structure sufficient priority is given to service provision for, and management of, women offenders.
	I shall touch on what unites women and men. There are two things we have to do if we are to change dramatically and significantly the way we deal with offenders. The first is to make an accurate risk assessment: what is the danger that they pose? The second is to do an accurate needs-based assessment. If we are going to stop the revolving door, we really have to better understand what we need to do with and for those offenders. If we do not assist them to break the cycle, those offenders will keep coming back. When we then look at the needs of women, we have to be clear that those needs differ from those of men.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, and I think the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, among others, said, the system was created and developed by men, for men. It does not necessarily respond in a way that meets the needs of women easily. As policy and programmes evolve, we have to take into account those sometimes quite stark differences.
	I hope noble Lords will agree that the seven pathways out of crime we have identified are very similar for men and women. Whether it is work, education, housing or health, those issues impinge significantly and almost equally on men and women, save for one element: for men, employment is the big factor that cuts into whether they will return to offending, while for women it is accommodation, because they have to care for children and others. We are committed to making fast and significant progress in developing our strategy.
	The strategic policy direction of the management of women offenders flows from the central National Offender Management Service through the framework of the women's offending reduction programme, whose intent is to ensure that policies and practices are appropriate to meet the needs of women, and to encourage joint working across departments and agencies to tackle the range of factors that impact on why women offend. The noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, says that we have to work together; that this is not just a criminal justice issue. I absolutely agree with her. The issues of education and health are important.
	I want us, however, to be accurate, and to acknowledge the marked changes that have been made by making the DfES responsible for education in the community and in prison. Making the Department of Health responsible for the health of women both in prison and outside is also a marked change, if we are to have end-to-end offender management and move smoothly from one to the other. We allocated £9.15 million of funding to the Together Women programme in March 2005. This is the first time that specific funding has been made available per gender, as opposed to any other criterion.
	I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, that the whole process we are looking at is predicated on the approach adopted by the Asha Centre programme. That is what we are trying to replicate: a holistic response. I wish to see a development of that inclusive, multi-agency approach right across the country. The geographical line management of women prisoners, but with central oversight of operational policy development and implementation, has led to improvements in performance and gender-specific interventions. That has been very hard-won and difficult to achieve.
	There is a policy group directly responsible for women's policy, headed up by Hazel Banks, which is aggressively looking at how we can make best use of this money. Within NOMS we are developing a national specification for women offenders in the community and in custody, which will ensure a central framework for the commissioning and delivery of appropriate provision for women. Gender-specific performance-monitoring arrangements will enable us to monitor and evaluate provision in a way that we could not do before. We are not complacent—more needs to be done. That is why I have asked my noble friend Lady Corston to undertake a review of vulnerable women to ensure that we are doing everything possible for women with particular vulnerabilities who come into contact with the criminal justice system. I look forward to receiving her report at the end of December 2006. I am determined that we should do better and leave no stone unturned in addressing the needs of women.
	The women's offending reduction programme, launched in March 2004, aims to improve community interventions and services to ensure they are appropriate for women, and to reduce use of custody. It is a real step forward. The first annual review of progress was produced in September 2005. I hope that many noble Lords will have seen it.
	I think that we are all agreed on the difficulties which we face. I turn to some of the specific issues that have been raised. I say to the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, that I do not have a snooze button. I wish that sleep would occasionally come my way to make a snooze button possible. I hope that I shall satisfy noble Lords that we have made many changes. All women's prisons now have some form of first-night support for women newly entering custody. However, we recognise that the level and type of services in prisons differ. The Prison Service is working hard to improve those services across the board.
	Noble Lords have rightly asked what has happened to re-rolling. One has to understand the role that Brockhill plays. The noble Baroness, Lady Stern, the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, will be aware of that. Unsentenced women are most likely to be impacted by the change of function at Brockhill, as once women are sentenced they are all transferred out of Brockhill to other prisons to create spaces for newly remanded women. NOMS is finalising the revised court catchment areas arising from the Brockhill change of function. The analysis of the impact on the closeness of home will follow from that. I have insisted—I am assured that this has been done—that there has to be an assessment of each woman's needs before she is moved, that there has to be a discussion with each woman, and then that the most appropriate placement is found for her. That process will be rigorously adhered to so that we can ensure that the needs of each woman in the prison estate are dealt with appropriately.
	Noble Lords know of the pressure on the prison estate. We have an oversupply of places in the women's estate and a tension in the male estate. That is the reality. Therefore, if we are to deliver parity of treatment and fairness to all our prisoners, it is incumbent on us to try to ensure that each prisoner has the best possible care that the system can devise. I do not hesitate to tell your Lordships that those issues are always difficult and complex, but that the needs of each person are looked at very fully indeed.
	The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, rightly raised concerns about the care that is given to pregnant women and the way in which we are dealing with that. The New Beginnings parenting courses, run by the Anna Freud Centre, are being piloted at three prisons and will be evaluated for their effectiveness in improving women's parenting skills. The pregnancy services should comply with the NHS guidelines. Therefore, a Prison Service order would not be appropriate, but I understand why the noble Earl raised the point, because at the time when it was suggested the NHS was not fully responsible for those services, and that would have been appropriate. Now we expect all women in prison to receive the same quality of care that they would receive from the NHS outside prison.
	I know, too, that there has been concern about the difficulty in transferring men and women. I assure the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, that there is separation between young people and men and women, and all appropriate steps are taken. On occasion, it is right because of the geographical positioning of the transfer that men and women are taken together, but children and young people are always taken separately, and appropriate steps are taken to make sure that is securely and properly done.
	The right reverend Prelate rightly raised the issue of how others can contribute to the care that we give to those in prison. I commend, as he did, the work done by the Mothers' Union and by the chaplaincies of all faiths in prisons to drive that forward. The noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, described the conditions in prisons as medieval and barbaric. That is an unjust assessment.

Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
	First, I should like to pay tribute to my right honourable friend, Tom Clarke, who piloted the Bill with a winning combination of determination and idealism through the other place, in a manner which showed why he is held in such great respect on all sides. I also welcome support for the Bill from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark, who regrets that he cannot attend the debate at this later hour, and likewise from the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker of Wallasey. She has asked me to say why she supports the Bill, which I shall turn to later. I very much look forward to the maiden speeches of my noble friend Lady Quin and the noble Lord, Lord Cotter.
	Before very briefly outlining the Bill, I want to say that it comes to us in a much more worked-over form than some. Not only have many of the most prominent NGOs taken part in its drafting; it is the product of support, indeed enthusiasm, from all parties. It has already received a lot of attention to detail and coverage. Your Lordships will wish to be aware of the conscientiousness of the participants in the Committee stage in the other place, and of the flexibility of Ministers.
	There is a reason beyond enthusiasm for the subject in this. It is that a Private Member's Bill can become an Act only if its life here as a Bill is short, neat and tidy. If it is not regarded as complete after coming to your Lordships' House, it will fall to the axe of the timetables for government legislation. I am reassured by all parties in your Lordships' House that this fledgling Bill will be able to fly as it did from the other place. But we shall need to keep the process short.
	The Bill's purpose is simple. It is to see that the promises of this Government made at Gleneagles, one year ago next week, and any made by future Governments, are kept. Its essence is simple: accountability. Accountability in delivering effectively the aid which thousands upon thousands of people marched for to Make Poverty History. Accountability to that public, through Parliament.
	Thus, the first provision of the Bill is for an annual report by the Secretary of State to Parliament. The report must include the year's progress towards the goal of 0.7 per cent of gross national income for official development assistance, and this is even explicit in the Long Title of the Bill. It must include general progress towards achieving Millennium Development Goals 1 to 7 through UK assistance and the multilateral aid to which the UK contributes; the specific effectiveness of UK bilateral aid in no fewer than 20 countries—a number reached after successful challenge by NGOs and by honourable friends of Members opposite—with an undertaking that for the duration of this Parliament the number will be taken to cover the 25 countries in DfID's public service agreement; and, finally, progress in promoting untied aid.
	As well as qualitative assessments, the report must also provide the statistical data set out in the schedule—actual sums of aid in various categories, sums of debt relieved, the total percentage of gross national income spent on official development assistance, and the percentage given to low-income countries. Bilateral aid is to be broken down by region, country and sector. Humanitarian assistance must also be detailed—another point successfully made in Committee in the other place. Bilateral official development assistance must be broken down by country, and the imputed UK share of multilateral official development assistance by country must also be given.
	And it is not only DfID's own activity which the Secretary of State must report on. He or she must also include a section on the effects of the policies and programmes of other government departments on the promotion of sustainable development and the reduction of poverty in developing countries, especially as this relates to MDG 8. This must specifically include an account of progress towards an open trading system which,
	"expands trading opportunities for low income countries",
	the development of an open, rule-based, non-discriminatory financial system and the enhancement of debt relief for low-income countries.
	Very importantly, this section must also cover what other departments do to promote transparency in both the provision of aid and the use made of aid, as well as measures to manage and monitor the use of aid, preventing corruption and ensuring that targets are clear.
	So, for recipients the Bill will give the power to see in advance what aid flows come from the UK so they can plan ahead. And it will set an example of good governance in our own disbursement of aid, which will also enable parliamentarians in receiving countries to hold their own governments to account. They will know how much has been received and for what purpose, just as here the Bill will sharpen the responsibility of Members of both Houses to chase progress towards the Millennium Development Goals.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, has asked me to give her three main reasons for her "enthusiastic support for the Bill". She says:
	"First, there is insufficient informed knowledge in our Parliament, let alone among our nation as a whole, about the reality of the world in which we live, and where often by dedicated but limited co-operation with the Government or NGO's in a developing country the United Kingdom can make a huge improvement for the people of that country. Second, there is a need for precise information to assist the debate. Third, it is important that the co-ordination of assistance overseas is clarified by spelling out the amounts and type of aid provided through the many multilateral organisations. The Bill provides well for this to be done".
	I am extremely grateful to her.
	All this represents a statutory codification which goes beyond current practice and which gives Parliament a much stronger role in ensuring that the considerable sums the UK taxpayer gives really make a difference. I commend the Bill to the House.
	Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Whitaker.)

Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, I was delighted to hear my noble friend Lady Whitaker so ably detailing the Bill's provisions and strongly commending this humane and long overdue measure to your Lordships' House. She did so with compelling concern, commitment and charm. Her speech alone justifies a Second Reading for the Bill. With my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, I very much look forward to the maiden speeches in the debate of my noble friend Lady Quin, and the noble Lord, Lord Cotter.
	Like my noble friend Lady Whitaker, I congratulate and pay tribute today to my right honourable friend Tom Clarke on steering the Bill through the House of Commons with such skill and success. Speaking as a serial legislator—both as a private Member and a Minister—I hold his achievement in admiration. By all the tests of the good MP, he is an outstanding parliamentarian. For me this is a deeply evocative moment. It calls to mind the warm all-party support he received in enacting his Private Member's Bill that became the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986. My roles then were as Tom's co-sponsor of his Bill, and secondly, to lead for Her Majesty's Opposition at all stages of its progress through the House of Commons. I described him at that time as a young parliamentarian of high promise. Now he is one of even higher performance.
	Very few parliamentarians have succeeded in taking two Private Members' Bills—and in different policy areas—to the statute book. I believe Tom Clarke will soon become one and this measure, like Tom himself, deserves well of this House. One would not have had to out-prophesy the prophet Isaiah to predict—after his success in the ballot for Private Members' Bills for the current parliamentary Session—that Tom's chosen measure would again be one to relieve and reduce preventable human suffering.
	At Report in another place on 16 June, Tom wisely reflected that Private Members' Bills are defeated not only by determined opponents but often also,
	"by their friends and supporters".
	He advised his supporters to,
	"stick to the brevity to which I have committed myself".—[Official Report, Commons, 16/6/06; col. 1008.]
	Even more important today is the fact that there is now no parliamentary time-allocation left for debating further amendments to this Bill in the House of Commons. Thus amending it here would end any realistic prospect of it becoming law. That is the backcloth against which this debate is taking place.
	In her speech, my noble friend Lady Whitaker emphasised the Bill's importance in making executive government more accountable. Unquestionably also its enactment will help parliamentarians more effectively to discharge their duty—some would say sovereign duty—to subject policy-making in this deeply sensitive and crucially important field to much more detailed scrutiny than is possible today.
	Who among us here can have any doubt that the combined wisdom of this House in scrutinising the annual report the Bill requires will improve policy-making on issues such as aid, debt and trade; or have any doubt that more accountability will benefit those most in need provided, of course, that it is not just about listening and responding to well-heeled lobbyists but hearing the cries of those now unheard?
	Improved accountability, transparency and scrutiny can and must be about ensuring that most help from the resources we provide reaches those most in need. That this is not happening now was graphically illustrated by UNICEF's classic report The State of the World's Children 1994 which stated:
	"When so much could be done for so many and at so little cost, then one central, shameful fact becomes unavoidable: the reason that these problems are not being overcome is not because the task is too large or too difficult or too expensive. It is that the job is not being given sufficient priority because those most severely affected are almost exclusively the poorest and least politically influential people on earth".
	Today that "shameful fact" is well exemplified by the incidence of blindness across the world. Four out of five blind people live in the third world and four out of five of them are preventably blind. Yet as that inspired crusader against avoidable disabilities, my friend the late and still widely mourned Sir John Wilson, so clearly demonstrated, the cost of saving people in the third world from preventable blindness has been falling as dramatically as the incidence of preventable blindness in many of the poorest countries has increased.
	Dr Samuel Johnson wrote:
	"How small of all that human hearts endure, That part that Lords and Kings can cure".
	By hastening Royal Assent to this Bill—the Tom Clarke Bill—this House can refute that cynical assessment of what parliamentarians acting together can achieve in righting the wrongs endured by the weak and vulnerable.
	It will not be the first refutation of Dr Johnson's cynicism—take the case of Wilberforce and human slavery—but never was it more necessary than it is now to wield all the influence we have to ensure that right is done in transforming endurance into lives worth living for the poor, vulnerable and afflicted people this Bill can help.
	We were reminded by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister only this week that too few aid pledges are made for real and too many for show. This Bill is about being real and I, too, commend it unreservedly to the House.

Baroness Quin: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to speak for the first time in this House on a Bill that relates to two of the greatest challenges facing us—tackling world poverty and doing so in a way that can be environmentally sustainable. I concur wholeheartedly with the comments made by my noble friend Lady Whitaker in presenting the Bill to us today.
	I am also very glad that the Minister participating in this debate will be my noble friend Lady Royall of Blaisdon. She and I go back quite a long way, having both worked together within the Labour group of MEPs in the years immediately after direct elections in 1979. Indeed, I sometimes reflect that she and I could write an entertaining memoir of those days, although I hope and expect that she is fully occupied with her ministerial duties and therefore will not be contemplating such a project in the near future.
	I come to the House having spent 18 years in another place. Some colleagues in the new intake into your Lordships' House have said to me that they think experience will prove most useful. I hope it will be useful, although I must say that so far I have been struck by the differences between the two Houses and the need for me as a new girl to learn the procedures in this House. I have also been struck with the ease in which I have managed to get lost in this end of a building I thought I knew well, and by the number of new rooms, corridors and staircases I have discovered in this magical Palace of Westminster. Furthermore, I have been struck by the warmth and friendliness of the reception that I have been met with, which I think is common to all new Members.
	I come here with, as we all have, views about the composition of this House. Indeed, as a Commons Member of the Joint Committee on Lords Reform set up in 2001, I probably have got more form on this issue than people think I should have. However, I have always been a strong believer in the important role of the second Chamber and the need to have a second Chamber that can prompt the primary Chamber to think again. I remember, as will many ex Ministers, with pleasure the evidence sessions I had with committees in this House. It was "with pleasure", except for the few occasions—I hope they were few—when I turned up feeling not entirely well prepared and being reminded yet again of the expertise and collective wisdom that there is in this House, to which I would like to pay tribute.
	Like many Members who have come from another place, we are often anxious to retain our old constituency links in our choice of title. My constituency was named Gateshead East and Washington West. That title confused many of the good voters of that area, so I settled very happily for the formal title of "Quin, of Gateshead", which gives me a public association with the town and the local authority, which has done so much for its inhabitants in recent years, especially in the spectacular cultural projects with which it is now nationally associated.
	There is a link between Gateshead Council and the Bill, because Gateshead Council was one of the authorities which took a lead in the establishment of an organisation called Council Aid in the 1980s. That was not just about channelling aid to communities in developing countries; it was also about council officials sharing their administrative knowledge and expertise with their counterparts in developing countries. I know that many people in Gateshead Council who were involved in that initiative are very committed to the goals of the Bill.
	As a supporter of the governing party, I am delighted publicly to be able to applaud the Government's record on aid and development from the establishment of DfID in 1997; through the work of its two dynamic Secretaries of State; the increased level of aid; the commitment to the 0.7 per cent target; and to the pioneering work on debt relief and the initiatives taken within the G8 and the European Union. As my noble friend Lord Morris has just mentioned, the Prime Minister this week set up the Africa Progress Panel, which we all hope will have every success in its work in the coming months.
	I am glad that the Government respond positively to this Bill, which I feel is important in a number of ways. First, it obliges the Government to report annually not just on the quantity but on the quality of their aid and to do so in an open and transparent way. It also calls for government to respond consistently and in a co-ordinated way. I was very much struck in a debate on corruption in Africa held in this House a couple of weeks ago, to which the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, referred, by the stress on the importance of having co-ordinated government policy on such issues. As those of us who have served in government know, co-ordination is a day-to-day challenge to governments, but it is vital if policies are to be effective.
	The Bill also stresses the importance of the millennium development goals, to which I believe we are all very attached: the goals of tackling world poverty, of promoting the education of women, and of doing so in an environmentally sustainable way.
	The Bill is capable of responding to public interest. There is massive public interest on this issue, as we have seen in the success of the Make Poverty History campaign and the genuine and generous public response to events such as the Asian tsunami. The public rightly want to know that the money they contribute is well spent. They also want to know that money given to government aid programmes is well spent.
	I believe that the Bill can also be a catalyst or stimulus for other groups and organisations. I hope that it will encourage European Union countries which at present do not have such a reporting mechanism at present to adopt one. I am sure that it will be welcomed by recipient countries—especially those where in the past there have been concerns about the quality of aid, including many of those mentioned in the Africa debate a couple of weeks ago, which are democratising and making their own procedures more open and accountable than they were. That is an important stimulus for them.
	It is also important as an example to non-governmental organisations, many of which are fully committed to their own accountability charters, because they know that the public who give to their organisations want to be assured that the money they give is well used.
	The Bill can be a good example to the private sector as well in its dealings with developing countries and the need to operate in a more open and transparent way than has been the case.
	Clause 6 refers to the partnership principle to which I believe the Government are committed in their relationship with developing countries in administering aid for the future. I am glad the Bill stresses that and brings it to the forefront of its composition. All in all, the clauses are very helpful and worthwhile.
	In conclusion, the Bill is an excellent example of the initiative that private Members in both Houses can take. I will certainly be very happy if, by supporting the Bill in my first contribution to this House, I can help to ensure its smooth legislative passage and to ensure that it reaches the statute book as soon as possible.

Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, it is a duty, but it is also a pleasure, to follow immediately after the maiden speech in this House of the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, and for me to welcome that excellent speech. I do so all the more cheerfully as the noble Baroness has chosen the same subject—international development—as I did for my own maiden speech here some five years ago.
	I had the pleasure of working with the noble Baroness first as a Member of the European Parliament, then when she was a Front-Bench speaker on foreign affairs in opposition, and when she became Minister for Europe while I was successive Governments' special representative for Cyprus. I hope she will not mind my saying that she was a much appreciated and most effective Minister for Europe, not least because she took the trouble to speak the languages of more than one of our EU partners.
	In Cyprus, she and I had an experience that could well end up in the Guinness Book of Records when Mr Rauf Denktash spoke for 49 minutes without giving her a chance to get in even an opening remark—not something, I am glad to say, that could happen in your Lordships' House. Anyway, her contribution to the debate will leave us with a lively expectation of her further participation in the work of this House.
	I shall speak briefly in support of the Bill, which I believe to be an admirable and necessary measure. I do so in particular to show support for it from the Cross Benches, signifying I hope that here, as in another place, this Bill enjoys the support of all parties and of those, like me, with no party allegiance. For many years, the British Government paid lip service to their commitment to the UN target of 0.7 per cent of GNP to be devoted to official development aid. UN conferences came and went and we continued to subscribe to the target. Meanwhile, our actual disbursement of aid moved away from the target, not towards it. This was a discreditable way of behaving, which undermined not only our own credibility and reputation but that of the United Nations.
	In more recent times, we have begun to move effectively towards achieving the target, and now the Government have committed themselves to a precise timetable for that. The Bill will underpin that commitment by obliging the Government to chart each step of the course. It will thus greatly increase the credibility of our position, and if it inspires other countries, which are also now committed to a precise timetable for achieving the 0.7 per cent, to do likewise, as I hope it will, it could have a multiplier effect and will facilitate the crucial task of monitoring the commitments, which is so essential.
	In that context, the Bill is of a piece with the very welcome announcement by the Prime Minister earlier this week of the establishment of a panel, to be chaired by Kofi Annan, to work on the follow-up to the commitments to Africa made last year. It is also of a piece with the publication next week of the report by your Lordships' own EU Select Committee on the European Union strategy for Africa, and in particular on that strategy's effective implementation. But the measure will do more than that. By linking our overall aid performance to progress towards achieving the different UN millennium development goals, in particular towards goal 8—the reduction of poverty, it should increase the pressure on receiving countries to be able to demonstrate clearly and transparently that Britain's aid really is going to support programmes in health, education and other vital objectives set out in the millennium development goals.
	The reference to preventing corruption is particularly important. Nothing undermines the general case for overseas aid more insidiously than the widespread belief that it will end up in the wrong hands and is not going to be applied effectively to the objectives identified for the grant of the aid in the first place. We need now to build up an effective alliance between the donors and the recipients to resist corruption and to convince the recipients that it is as much in their long-term interest as it is in ours to be able to demonstrate that aid is helping to achieve the millennium development goals. That measure should help to achieve that aim.
	On a purely procedural point, I would urge, along with noble Lords who have already spoken, that Members of this House do not move any amendments in Committee. The peculiarities of the procedures here and in another place would mean that any such move would be likely to result in the Bill being lost, which would be a miserable outcome. In any case, to my relatively untutored eye, the provisions of the Bill seem to be admirably clear and concise. I understand that it enjoys the enthusiastic support of the Secretary of State for International Development. I hope that we can today wish it on its way to speedy adoption.

Baroness Northover: My Lords, from these Benches we are happy to support this Bill. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, for introducing it. I too pay tribute to Tom Clarke for taking this Bill through the Commons, and to the NGOs that helped to draft it. My colleague in the other place, John Barrett, was a co-sponsor. As we saw in the Commons, and as we see again in the Lords, this Bill commands cross-party support. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, for her thoughtful and well informed maiden speech. I also pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Cotter for his equally committed and very moving speech.
	The noble Lord has referred to my role as his supporter. I was honoured to be asked by him to dress up in a red robe and support him in that fashion. I do not often get that chance. I am grateful that he has made his maiden speech in support of this particular area.
	As the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, has so effectively and comprehensively explained, this Bill seeks to bring accountability and transparency to what the UK does in terms of aid and humanitarian relief. Last year, Make Poverty History made a public case for assisting the poorest people in the poorest countries of the world, and by the end of that year, eight out of 10 people in the UK were familiar with its message. That was an incredible achievement. Children like mine wore white wrist bands and knew exactly why they did so.
	But it would be too easy to let this subject slip. The UN High Level Panel, of which the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, was such a notable member, made clear last year that development relates to the security of us all; it is not simply about what we should do to help those most in need, though that is, or should be, the key motivation. We heard from the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and others exactly what that means in terms of the support that is needed.
	This Bill ensures that governments of whatever colour must report on what they are doing in international development under a number of headings, which, one hopes, would make it difficult to put an inappropriate gloss or spin on things. The Bill aims to increase transparency in reporting in this area so that the level, poverty-focus and coherence of the Government's international development policy and expenditure, and their contribution towards reaching the millennium development goals, can be readily tracked over time. As the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, has said, DfID produces a comprehensive annual report, but that forces parliamentarians to read and assess it.
	If the Bill becomes law, it will require the Secretary of State to prepare an annual report to Parliament using information that is comparable over time, including between government administrations. It will also place on the statute book for the first time a specific reference to the UN target—which we signed up to in 1970—for expenditure on official development assistance to constitute 0.7 per cent of gross national income. It will also for the first time prescribe in law how DfID should report on its development policies and use of resources. As I have mentioned, it strengthens the role of parliamentarians in holding the Executive to account.
	I should illustrate how this might help. It is notable that Ireland made the commitment of having a timetable to meet the 0.7 per cent target when it held the presidency of the EU. It promptly reneged on that as soon as the UK took over from it and the international spotlight was off it. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, has mentioned how governments pay tribute to that goal while all the time moving away from it. The Bill would make such slippage less easy, or at least more embarrassing, and that is helpful to us in all parties if we wish to see the MDGs delivered, ever. Would that there were similar Bills going through other Parliaments and within the European Parliament.
	As my noble friend Lord Chidgey put it, this Bill is one tool in our toolbox. I note that he wishes to add at least one more—his Bill against corruption. I look forward to cross-party support on that. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, made it crystal clear how important this is and how much more we all need to do.
	It has been made clear that this is a straightforward Bill that is fit for purpose and that any slippage in the timetable in the Lords will cause it to fail. I have heard no rumours of people wishing to see changes in it, such that they would jeopardise its passage. Lest noble Lords think that the Bill was simply rubberstamped in the other place, I point them to the inch-thick transcript of the Commons discussions. I have to admire Tom Clarke's deft footwork in stepping over and round not only a critic or two but also, as the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, put it, the expansiveness and lengthy support of some friends.
	An editorial in the Guardian of 15 June stated:
	"Few private members' bills become law. Fewer still can hope to affect millions of lives. But the international development bill . . . just might".
	In the interests of brevity I will not detain your Lordships further and simply say that the Liberal Democrats strongly support this Bill, that we will table no amendments to it in the interests of it passing into law, and that we are very glad indeed that it has been brought forward.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to my noble friend Lady Whitaker for taking this very fine Bill through the Lords, and I am delighted that it has been warmly welcomed by all noble Lords who have participated in today's debate and those who could not be present—the noble Baronesses, Lady Chalker and Lady Rawlings.
	I also pay tribute to my right honourable friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill on his skill and dedication in drafting this clear and concise Bill; it was, indeed, deft footwork, as the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, said. As my noble friend Lord Morris of Manchester informed us, Tom Clarke has a fine track record in this area. Important changes were made in the other place and I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, that the report will cover 25 countries, as was agreed there.
	It was a real pleasure to listen to the excellent maiden speech of my noble friend Lady Quin, who I have known and held in high esteem since we worked together in 1979, when we shared interesting, enjoyable but incredibly frustrating times, and that of the noble Lord, Lord Cotter, who I do not yet know—but I have spent many happy hours in his former constituency of what we used to call, "Weston-super-mud". I note that we also share the same recreational interests. Both speakers will add greatly to the expertise and collective wisdom of this House and I look forward to their valuable contributions. This is undoubtedly an important Bill. It may be only one tool in the toolbox of the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, however it is a welcome and innovative tool.
	It will enhance parliamentary scrutiny of Ministers in delivering on our pledges to help the poorer countries and peoples of the world. Also, through Parliament, it will ultimately make Government accountable to the people. Personally, I fervently hope that the annual reports that will result from the Bill will inform, stimulate and reinvigorate public debate and build on the strong public support for international development already engendered by such initiatives as the Make Poverty History campaign. Indeed, I hope that it will be a means of enhancing democratic engagement.
	The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, asked about the form of the report. This matter is still under discussion in DfID, but we hope that there may be one report encompassing the annual report and the report demanded by the Bill. In answer to one of his earlier questions about 10 per cent cuts, DfID has invested in a programme of modernisation of its administrative systems that will release 10 per cent of its support staff by 2008 and will result in significantly more efficient and effective processes for planning, accounting and monitoring, allowing us to devote more resources to front-line delivery.
	The efforts of Make Poverty History campaigners helped to ensure that an unprecedented level of attention was focused on international development in 2005—with splendid results. This allowed the UK, as president of the G8, to strongly advocate real change leading up to the G8 Summit at Gleneagles. I take this opportunity to commend an excellent little booklet entitled G8 Gleneagles: One Year On—Turning Talk into Action. It is packed full of useful facts and figures. I note the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, about the G8 and accountability of commitments. I assure her that the Prime Minister's panel, established this week, has been warmly welcomed globally. That is very good news.
	As my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development made clear in another place, the Bill also provides a powerful model for other countries—developed and developing—to follow. It provides a clear example of how the democratic process can be advanced by ensuring that Parliaments, on behalf of the peoples they represent, have the ability to examine and influence the development policies and programmes of their countries and, in turn, hold their Governments to account.
	As noble Lords have said, one of the key elements of the Bill is that it establishes, for the first time in UK law, the importance of a date by which to achieve the UN target of 0.7 per cent of gross national income to be devoted to official development assistance. As your Lordships will know, it is vital that all donor countries meet this crucial international target, and I am proud to say that this Government will do so, at the latest, by 2013. Like the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, I trust that it will have a multiplier effect.
	However, reporting is not just about money. It is about how British policies and programmes are changing the lives of people in poor countries for the better. I particularly welcome the fact that the Bill highlights the importance of policy coherence across government departments in promoting international development. Reporting is about the impact of our endeavours on the ground, and we have, through the millennium development goals, a powerful mechanism to deliver that. We need the Bill so that progress towards making poverty history and achieving the millennium development goals can be set out and scrutinised.
	The year 2005 represented a milestone—notably at Gleneagles, where the G8, spurred on by the Make Poverty History campaign, came together as never before. Important commitments were made at Gleneagles and we now have to deliver on those. We have an obligation to the world's poor but also to our own taxpayers. As my noble friend Lady Quin said, people want to know that their money is being well spent. Our aid must be effective and well targeted. We know that, given the right circumstances, development works. The Bill will help us to demonstrate that things are changing for the better.
	Ultimately, progress depends on the ability of individual partner Governments to deliver on poverty reduction for their people. The commitments made in 2005 were predicated on a commitment to better governance in partner countries. My noble friend Lord Judd was right to emphasise the importance of good governance.
	The Bill highlights the need for greater transparency in the provision of aid and in the way that it is used with partner countries. Only national Governments and their citizens can build states and improve their political governance to the point where corruption is stifled. Donors, of course, can play a support role in that process through funding, support for capacity building and diplomatic engagement. We are active in all those areas. We are also working in more targeted ways to support national strategies and to fight corruption. The noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, is absolutely right to say that we have much more to do in the fight against corruption. I can assure noble Lords that the Government will remain active on this issue, with my right honourable friend Hilary Benn championing the issue across Government. We in this country have to ensure that we adhere to the highest possible standards.
	On fighting corruption, we need enforcement actions such as strong and effective anti-corruption agencies and preventative measures. Such measures include strengthening public sector budgetary and financial management, procurement, accounting and auditing, reforming civil service management, enhancing public oversight through strengthened parliamentary committees, developing measures to reduce judicial corruption and supporting civil society to promote transparency and accountability in public life. The best people to promote good governance and to help to fight corruption are those who live in the country and are most affected by such issues. That is why we hope that this Bill will be taken as a model for such Governments to engage with their peoples and parliaments and to be held to account.
	We are at a crossroads. I have set out reasons for us to be optimistic but there are real challenges ahead. Progress towards achieving the millennium development goals is uneven. So many of the world's poor lack enough food to eat, enough water to drink, a roof over their heads, a job, a school for their kids and medicine and care when they are sick. One in six human beings has to live on less than a dollar a day; 30,000 children die needlessly every day; half a million women still die each year in pregnancy or childbirth; over 40 million people already live with HIV; tuberculosis and malaria persist; and new problems like avian flu require concerted international action. Above all, there is the overarching need to manage the planet sustainably and fairly for all.
	The noble Lord, Lord Cotter, said that we have a duty to value all human lives, the poorest included. The population continues to increase but many of the natural resources on which we rely are already becoming seriously depleted. Climate change is the most serious and urgent problem that the world faces. Disaster prevention measures, as referred to by my noble friend Lord Judd, are also a challenge, as are conflict resolution and the strategic issues that he mentioned. We need this important Bill to track precisely and in detail how the Government will in the years ahead tackle these major challenges. It is a very welcome tool in our toolbox, and I warmly commend the Bill to the House.